[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
ENSURING EFFECTIVE PREPAREDNESS AND
RESPONSE--AN ASSESSMENT OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2012 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY
PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE,
AND COMMUNICATIONS
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 9, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-7
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
72-218 PDF WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Peter T. King, New York, Chairman
Lamar Smith, Texas Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Daniel E. Lungren, California Loretta Sanchez, California
Mike Rogers, Alabama Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas
Michael T. McCaul, Texas Henry Cuellar, Texas
Gus M. Bilirakis, Florida Yvette D. Clarke, New York
Paul C. Broun, Georgia Laura Richardson, California
Candice S. Miller, Michigan Danny K. Davis, Illinois
Tim Walberg, Michigan Brian Higgins, New York
Chip Cravaack, Minnesota Jackie Speier, California
Joe Walsh, Illinois Cedric L. Richmond, Louisiana
Patrick Meehan, Pennsylvania Hansen Clarke, Michigan
Ben Quayle, Arizona William R. Keating, Massachusetts
Scott Rigell, Virginia Vacancy
Billy Long, Missouri Vacancy
Jeff Duncan, South Carolina
Tom Marino, Pennsylvania
Blake Farenthold, Texas
Mo Brooks, Alabama
Michael J. Russell, Staff Director/Chief Counsel
Kerry Ann Watkins, Senior Policy Director
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
I. Lanier Avant, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE, AND COMMUNICATIONS
Gus M. Bilirakis, Florida, Chairman
Joe Walsh, Illinois Laura Richardson, California
Scott Rigell, Virginia Hansen Clarke, Michigan
Tom Marino, Pennsylvania, Vice Vacancy
Chair Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Blake Farenthold, Texas (Ex Officio)
Peter T. King, New York (Ex
Officio)
Kerry A. Kinirons, Staff Director
Natalie A. Nixon, Deputy Chief Clerk
Curtis Brown, Minority Professional Staff Member
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Statements
The Honorable Gus M. Bilirakis, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Florida, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Emergency
Preparedness, Response, and Communications..................... 1
The Honorable Laura Richardson, a Representative in Congress From
the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Communications........... 2
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Homeland Security:
Prepared Statement............................................. 3
Witness
Mr. W. Craig Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Department of Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 4
Prepared Statement............................................. 6
Appendix
Questions From Chairman Gus M. Bilirakis of Florida.............. 33
Questions From Ranking Member Laura Richardson of California..... 37
Questions From Chairman Peter T. King of New York................ 49
Question From Chairman Gus M. Bilirakis of Florida on Behalf of
Honorable Mike Rogers of Alabama............................... 49
ENSURING EFFECTIVE PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE--AN ASSESSMENT OF THE
FISCAL YEAR 2012 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
AGENCY
----------
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response,
and Communications,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:30 a.m., in
Room 311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Gus M. Bilirakis
[Chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Bilirakis, Marino, Farenthold,
Richardson, Clarke, and Thompson (ex officio).
Mr. Bilirakis. The Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness,
Response, and Communications will come to order. The
subcommittee is meeting today to receive testimony from
Administrator Craig Fugate on the President's fiscal year 2012
budget request for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. I
now recognize myself for an opening statement.
The President's fiscal year 2012 budget requests $10
billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA. Of
this amount, the budget includes $815 million for management
and administration, $3.8 billion for State and local programs,
and $1.8 billion for the Disaster Relief Fund.
In this difficult budget climate, I am pleased to see that
FEMA is taking steps to reduce its costs without sacrificing
operations. The request for management and administration is
$88 million less than the level in the fiscal year 2011
continuing resolution. Much of this reduction is attributed to
efficiencies and streamlined business processes. I hope to hear
more from Administrator Fugate about these efficiencies and his
timeline for the completion of program evaluations to identify
any duplicative programs.
An issue that Administrator Fugate has been stressing is a
whole-of-community approach to emergency management. This is an
approach that local emergency managers and emergency response
providers in my area of Florida and around the country have
been following for years. One way to accomplish this is to
ensure that as policies are developed at the Federal level,
officials at the State and local level and citizens are
involved in the process.
With this in mind, I must again raise an issue I raised
with Administrator Fugate last month. I've heard from emergency
managers in my district and from around the country that they
are concerned that the requirements of FEMA's Functional Needs
Support Services guidance may impact their ability to open
emergency shelters during a disaster. They have repeatedly
sought clarification from FEMA and the Department of Justice on
the application of this guidance, but have not received
sufficient answers. So, Administrator Fugate, I hope we can
continue to discuss this issue and that you will work with me
and my constituents to clarify these requirements so we can
ensure that all citizens are accommodated during a disaster
without impeding response capabilities.
Finally, I want to thank Administrator Fugate for hosting
Members of this subcommittee at FEMA last month. It was the
beginning of the dialogue that I look forward to continuing
this morning.
The Chairman now recognizes the Ranking Member Ms.
Richardson from California for any statement she may have.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, let
me congratulate you and welcome you on your virgin voyage here.
It has always been a pleasure to work with you, and I look
forward to continuing to do so. You can count on my assistance.
Mr. Bilirakis. I appreciate that very much.
Ms. Richardson. Mr. Fugate, good morning. We are here today
to receive testimony from the administrator regarding the
Federal Emergency Management Agency's fiscal year 2012 budget
request. While I am very interested in hearing from Mr. Fugate
regarding his plans for full year 2012, it is imperative that
we discuss some of the alarming impacts pending with the
potential passage of H.R. 1.
As the subcommittee meets to discuss spending for full year
2012, the Congress is simultaneously holding discussions on
H.R. 1. As we sit here today, the Federal Government, including
FEMA, is only funded through March 18, 2011, under the current
continuing resolution. This has not only affected FEMA's
ability to determine funding needs, but has also delayed the
publication of guidance for existing grant programs, which will
further delay any grants awarded this year. These delays
frustrate the ability of stakeholders, including our State and
local governments, to maintain an adequate level of emergency
preparedness and response.
To make matters worse, the $1.4 billion reduction in
funding for FEMA-administered grants serves as another setback.
We are all familiar with what those reductions include. These
cuts will not only influence stakeholders' preparedness ability
for the remainder of full year 2011, but will also carry into
future funding cycles. While I respect FEMA's end goal of
simplifying the grant process--and I had an opportunity to
speak to Mr. Fugate just a moment ago--what I do think we need
to be concerned is, if we go on this consolidated process, that
those funding sections that are melded in there are not reduced
to a level where they are competing against one another and
there is not enough adequate funding.
As you are aware, two programs of particular importance to
me are the SAFER program, which includes the firefighters,
which has always been, I think, a big fight, and an amendment
was on the floor to that fact of H.R. 1.
Just recently, on February 22, in the 37th Congressional
District, a Libyan tanker spilled approximately 710 gallons of
oil when the ship tanks overflowed into the harbor there. I
want to commend all of the work that was put together. I have
gone to the Gulf twice after the unfortunate Gulf spill to see
the boons, after seeing the various devices that were there in
place, you could definitely tell that we had lessons learned,
and all of the operations were in place to handle that
situation in a safe manner. I want to commend you and all your
efforts of coordinating that effort.
Finally, what I think is important to talk about is the
National Disaster Recovery Framework. It has been over a year
since the draft document was available for the public, and I am
hoping a final version will provide us with a clearer picture
of the roles and responsibilities of the recovery process. I am
interested in hearing a status update regarding FEMA's efforts
towards the recoupment of the individual assistance funding
received by those affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Again, I look forward to your testimony and working with you.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you. Of course I look forward to
working with you in the upcoming months.
Other Members of the subcommittee are reminded that opening
statements may be submitted for the record.
[The statement of Ranking Member Thompson follows:]
Statement of Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson
March 9, 2010
Welcome Administrator Fugate and thank you for being here today to
testify regarding the President's fiscal year 2012 budget request for
the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
I appreciate the administration's attempt to balance the commitment
to fiscal responsibility with the need to strengthen the security of
our Nation in the fiscal year 2012 budget.
But unfortunately, we have not finalized the fiscal year 2011
budget.
Instead, we are relying on a Continuing Resolution process that
fails to provide the stability necessary to implement important
homeland security initiatives.
Specifically, the failure to pass the fiscal year 2011 budget will
place additional strain on FEMA's Grants Directorate and State and
local agencies trying to invest in critical homeland security
priorities.
I hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will end
this dangerous budgetary strategy and pursue a course that provides our
first responders with the financial certainty they need to fulfill
their missions.
We must continue to make those critical investments in preparedness
even in these tough economic times because preparedness and mitigation
is cost-effective.
Reports by the Congressional Budget Office and Multihazard
Mitigation Council confirm that mitigation saves lives and reduces
property damage.
Therefore, I am concerned that the proposals to decrease FEMA's
budget could limit the progress the agency has experienced in the last
few years.
Thankfully, we have not experienced a storm of the same force of
Hurricane Katrina. But last year, FEMA processed the largest number of
disaster declarations in its history. Additionally, we have seen a rise
in the number of devastating natural disasters across the world.
Therefore, I do have some concerns about the budget proposal,
including the possible devastating effects of House Resolution 1, which
calls for significant cuts to first responder grants and training
programs.
We should learn the lessons from Hurricane Katrina and not reverse
FEMA's progress by creating budgetary shortfalls and decreasing
capacity at the State and local levels.
First responder investments through grant programs not only enhance
a specific locality but also build our National capacity to be
resilient in the face of disasters.
Additionally, I am concerned about proposals to consolidate several
free-standing grants, such as the Metropolitan Medical Response System
grant, which could diminish investments in these important initiatives.
As a former volunteer firefighter I believe that we must continue
to support these critical emergency preparedness efforts and build
capacity at the local levels.
I look forward to hearing how you will address these concerns.
Thank you again for being here today. I yield back.
Mr. Bilirakis. I am pleased to welcome Administrator Fugate
before the subcommittee. Mr. Fugate was appointed by President
Obama to serve as the Administrator of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency and was confirmed by the United States Senate
on May 13, 2009.
Prior to coming to FEMA, Mr. Fugate served as director of
the Florida Division of Emergency Management, a position he
held for 8 years. Mr. Fugate began his emergency management
career as a volunteer firefighter, emergency paramedic, and
finally as a lieutenant with the Alachua County Fire Rescue.
Mr. Fugate and his wife hail from Gainesville, Florida, a city
very close to my heart.
Welcome, administrator. Your entire written statement will
appear in the record. I ask that you summarize your testimony.
You are recognized now. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF W. CRAIG FUGATE, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Fugate. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member
Richardson, and other Members of the subcommittee. It is an
honor to be here, sir, and to reestablish the relationship we
had when you were in the Florida legislature.
The purpose of this briefing is to present the President's
request for 2012, our budget request. As you have summarized
most of that, I just want to talk about some general items and
then give the committee plenty of time to answer the questions
you have.
Our mission is really about--you know, there is a tendency
to look at FEMA as a response organization. Our mission is
really about supporting State and local governments, preparing
for, and then ultimately the response and recovery from those
disasters that require Federal assistance. But in doing this,
there are certain costs of maintaining capabilities, there are
certain costs in providing preparedness funds that have been
on-going programs based upon both the threats from natural
hazards, but also the threat from terrorism.
But the one thing that I have always been faced with is
nobody has ever given us a blank check. We have always had to
work within the budgets and the constraints that we have in
looking at how we prioritize our programs. So this budget
starts that process of implementing many of the reductions that
are going to be required in the budget process, but also
continuing to provide a level of service to meet the needs in
support of our Governors and local communities. Part of these
savings are actually being done through efficiencies within
FEMA, of looking at how we do our business, and looking for
reductions in those costs to pass those back to the taxpayer
versus cutting and eliminating capability to respond and
support during a disaster.
Mr. Chairman, some of these examples are really
straightforward, such as looking at travel that is not core to
the mission, and looking at alternatives, such as using more
videoconferencing and web chat, which actually allows greater
participation in many venues than conferences; looking at
things such as decommissioning and turning off excess
communication equipment that had been activated from previous
disasters; going back and looking at open disasters and closing
out those funds that are no longer needed or were deobligated,
but had not been put back into the Disaster Relief Fund.
Last year, through efforts of closing out existing open
missions on the Federal Government side, we were able to place
over $2 billion back into the Disaster Relief Fund to support
on-going response and recovery operations. We are continuing
this year, as we look at existing open disasters where work has
been completed by the States and local governments but there
are still obligated funds that are no longer needed,
deobligating those and put those back into the relief funds so
we can continue that work.
So as we go through this process of preparing for the 2012
budget, we want to continue looking at some of our key
investments. As was pointed out by Ranking Member Richardson,
we have invested in various grant programs, some of which have
been very important in the recent economic downturn, such as
SAFER, in which the President is continuing the level of
funding there to continue supporting the ability to retain,
rehire, and keep firefighters in communities that are in acute
budget situations.
We are also looking at, again, giving some flexibility as
we look at one of the things the General Accounting Office
report that recently came out says: We have a lot of programs
that do similar things and actually duplicate each other. So we
are looking at how we can consolidate some of these grants,
but, as the Ranking Member stated, make sure the guidance still
funds those activities as eligible, but not have one pot of
money coming down to States and local governments looking at
one piece of preparing for a terrorist event and another pot of
money having very similar guidance, going down to the same
communities; and giving them in these challenging times a
little bit more flexibility of how to apply those funds without
necessarily saying, we are going to fund each one of these
activities separately, when they have common and sometimes
duplicative types of efforts that are occurring.
So as we go through this process, and we continue to work
on our budget, one of the things I am most proud of being at
FEMA is being part of the team not only within FEMA, but within
Homeland Security and the Federal Government. Our only real
challenge that I see as we continue to go forward is to
continue to recognize that, even if FEMA is in good shape, if
our State and local partners are not in good shape and don't
have support, we will not be able to respond effectively in
this Nation to disaster. It has to be a team effort. We cannot
just fix one part of the team. It has to be local, State,
Federal, but also including volunteer, faith-based, the private
sector and the communities we serve as part of that team.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much.
[The statement of Mr. Fugate follows:]
Prepared Statement of W. Craig Fugate
i. introduction
Good morning Chairman Bilirakis, Ranking Member Richardson, and
distinguished Members of the subcommittee. My name is Craig Fugate, and
I am the administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA). It is an honor to appear before you today on behalf of FEMA to
discuss our fiscal year 2012 budget request. I was pleased to host
several Members of this subcommittee at FEMA headquarters last month
for a productive discussion on addressing some of our most pressing
issues. I look forward to continuing that dialogue today.
As you know, FEMA has changed the way we do business over the past
several years. FEMA was included in the organizational realignment that
led to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in the
aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks. FEMA also underwent major
organizational changes after Hurricane Katrina, when Congress passed
the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act (PKEMRA) and increased
funding for building emergency management capabilities. In short, FEMA
is a much more effective agency today than we were just a few years
ago. Our ability to meet our mission this past fiscal year was a direct
result of the tools that we have been able to put in place with your
help and support.
However, we also know these are difficult economic times that call
on us to make difficult budgetary choices. We all bear the
responsibility for internalizing the challenges presented by an austere
budget environment, while ensuring we fulfill our responsibilities to
the Nation. In fiscal year 2012, we will fulfill our mission by
increasing our efficiency and focusing on our core mission of ensuring
resilience to disasters. While this economic climate requires us to
fulfill our mission at the same time as we reduce our spending, the
administration's proposed FEMA budget is reflective of both
imperatives.
ii. overview of fema progress
FEMA's mission is to support our citizens and first responders to
ensure that as a Nation we work together to build, sustain, and improve
our capability to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover
from, and mitigate all hazards.
In addition to our Washington, DC headquarters, FEMA has ten
permanent regional offices, three permanent area offices, and various
temporary disaster-related sites that carry out the agency's operations
throughout the United States and its territories. I would like to begin
my testimony by presenting a brief overview of the major programs
administered by FEMA, and providing a sense of what we have done with
the resources we have been allocated.
Response
FEMA's Response Directorate, a part of the Office of Response and
Recovery, assists States by providing and coordinating the core Federal
response capabilities needed to save and sustain lives, minimize
suffering, and protect property in communities overwhelmed by the
impact of an incident. More specifically, the Response Directorate
coordinates and integrates Federal interagency all-hazards disaster
planning and response operations; manages emergency response teams; and
oversees disaster emergency communications programs.
FEMA's response capability has come a long way over the past
several years. In 2005, Federal incident response duties were shared by
two groups of teams: the Emergency Response Teams (ERTs) and the
Federal Incident Response Support Teams (FIRST). Due to cost
constraints, ERTs were established using staff members who had other
primary day-to-day responsibilities in FEMA's headquarters and the
regions; and the FIRSTs were comprised of teams located in two regions
with a small dedicated staff. Moreover, catastrophic planning was
conducted primarily at FEMA headquarters, since the regions were not
adequately staffed with dedicated planners to fully perform this
function.@
In order to address these inadequacies, FEMA consolidated the
responsibilities of the ERT and FIRST teams into 13 regional and three
national Incident Management Assistance Teams (IMATs), rapid response
teams staffed with full-time personnel. FEMA has also used funds
provided by Congress to upgrade technology and develop an all-hazards
24/7 situational awareness capability at the National Watch Center in
FEMA Headquarters and in all of the Regional Watch Centers. The FEMA
Operations Center (FOC) has upgraded its alert, warning, and
notification technology capabilities and tripled the Emergency
Notification System (ENS) capability. With increased staffing levels,
FEMA has integrated the planning efforts conducted at the regional and
local levels. Finally, FEMA's IMATs, Urban Search and Rescue (US&R)
teams and Mobile Emergency Response Support (MERS) teams are capable of
deploying and arriving on scene to provide incident management support
and disaster response assistance within 12 hours of notification.
In 2010, FEMA responded to 81 new Presidential major disaster
declarations and nine new Presidential emergency declarations, and
issued 18 fire management assistance declarations. In all, the agency's
efforts provided critical assistance to 41 States, the District of
Columbia, and two territories, in response to a variety of major
disasters, including back-to-back severe winter storms and record
snowfall, Hurricanes Alex and Earl, Tropical Storms Otto and Tomas,
several fires in California, an earthquake in Imperial County,
California, severe storms and flooding in Illinois, and record floods
in Tennessee.
We have also increased our coordination with the private sector on
a range of issues that will benefit our response effort. We have
corporate candidates, nominated by the Retail Industry Leaders
Association, serving 3-month rotations within our National Response
Coordination Center (NRCC). We have included private sector
representatives in our no-notice ``thunderbolt'' response and recovery
exercises, and we have shared ideas and lessons learned on a wide array
of technology initiatives, including mobile applications, shared data
feeds, and alert warnings through smart phones and other devices.
Finally, we have dedicated one of our primary working groups--chaired
by a member of the private sector--in support of National Level
Exercise 2001 (NLE 11) to engaging the private sector.
Recovery
FEMA's Recovery Directorate administers Federal disaster assistance
programs that support individuals and communities affected by
disasters. These programs constitute the majority of the resources
provided by the Federal Government to ensure that individuals and
communities affected by disasters of all sizes, including catastrophic
events and terrorist attacks, receive rapid disaster assistance.
Aspects of FEMA's Recovery Directorate include:
Individual Assistance, which includes housing, crisis
counseling, legal services, and unemployment assistance;
Public Assistance, which includes funding for debris
removal, emergency protective measures, and permanent
restoration of infrastructure;
Fire Management Assistance, which provides funding for the
management and control of fires on publicly or privately owned
forests or grasslands;
Long-term community recovery, also known as Emergency
Support Function (ESF) No. 14, which coordinates the resources
of Federal departments and agencies to support the long-term
recovery of States and communities as they work to reduce or
eliminate risk from future incidents;
Mass Care, also known as ESF No. 6, which coordinates the
delivery of Federal mass care, emergency assistance, housing
and human services, when local, Tribal, and State response and
recovery needs exceed their capabilities; and
Coordination with a variety of non-governmental
organizations. Over the past several years, FEMA has overhauled
its recovery capability to provide disaster assistance more
quickly and effectively. For example, in 2005, FEMA had a daily
capacity to perform 7,000 home inspections that were used to
determine which FEMA repair and replacement grants a disaster
survivor may be eligible to receive. Today, that daily capacity
has more than doubled.
In 2005, disaster survivors were required to contact as many as 17
separate Federal agencies to apply for disaster assistance. Today,
thanks to funding provided by Congress, FEMA and the Government as a
whole have a centralized channel for disaster survivors to apply for
Federally funded assistance and obtain other critical disaster
information from Federal, State, Tribal, and local sources:
www.DisasterAssistance.gov. FEMA has also established Internet
Registration and Applicant Intake surge capacity to process up to
200,000 registrations per day during a catastrophic event. Moreover,
since the identity of nearly all applicants is authenticated at
registration, FEMA is able to strengthen controls against waste, fraud,
and abuse.
FEMA achieved 93.5 percent customer satisfaction from Individual
Assistance applicants in 2010, and www.DisasterAssistance.gov was named
on the www.Congress.org list of five best Government websites. Last
year, the capabilities for disaster survivors register for disaster
assistance extended to smartphones as well.
Several years ago, FEMA had no Nation-wide cohesive system to
locate and monitor shelters. In order to rectify this, FEMA created a
standardized, common, and reliable system that can be used at all
levels of government and by non-governmental organizations to manage
shelter facility data.
One of the most important changes we made to the recovery process
involved establishing two Public Assistance review panels in order to
break logjams within the Public Assistance appeals process. The review
panels helped to expedite decisions on pending Public Assistance
projects, and gave us the opportunity to work closely with applicants
to resolve long-standing disputes. Created by Secretary Napolitano in
2009 in order to expedite final eligibility decisions for disputed
projects, these review panels helped stalled projects move forward. To
date, these two panels have resolved 173 previously disputed cases.
We have seen tangible results from the changes we have made to our
recovery process. For example, on May 14, 2010, only 10 days after the
President declared the massive flooding in Tennessee a major disaster,
FEMA had received 30,459 disaster assistance registrations and approved
more than $87 million in assistance through the Individuals and
Households Program. Of the $87 million that had been approved, almost
92% has already been disbursed to families.
As another example, 2 weeks after the President had declared the
2009 flooding in Georgia a major disaster, FEMA had already received
nearly 20,000 disaster assistance registrations and distributed nearly
12,000 disaster assistance payments, totaling almost $40 million. In
fact, FEMA issued the first disaster assistance payments the day after
the declaration.
Federal Insurance and Mitigation
By encouraging and supporting mitigation efforts, FEMA leads the
Nation in reducing the impact of disasters and helping to break the
``damage-rebuild-damage'' cycle in America's most vulnerable
communities. FEMA has the lead role in helping communities increase
their resilience through risk analysis, reduction, and insurance. One
mitigation tool is the Flood Hazard Mapping and Risk Analysis Program,
which addresses flood hazard data update needs and preserves the
successful Flood Map Modernization investment. The National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP) provides flood insurance on a National basis
to owners of properties located in vulnerable areas through the Federal
Government, through both a premium revenue and fee-generated fund
called the National Flood Insurance Fund (NFIF). In fiscal year 2010,
the NFIP reduced potential flood losses by an estimated $1.6 billion
and increased flood insurance policies in force by nearly 1 percent.
The Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program offers an annual funding
source for qualified mitigation activities that are not dependent upon
a declaration of disaster by the President. The PDM program has reduced
administration costs by $800,000, which has made more funds available
for grants. Furthermore, Risk Mapping, Assessment, and Planning (Risk
MAP) is FEMA's program to provide communities with flood information
and tools they can use to enhance their mitigation plans and better
protect their citizens. FEMA initiated 600 Risk MAP projects in this
past fiscal year, which assisted 3,800 communities by addressing the
highest priority engineering data needs, including coastal and levee
areas.
Preparedness
FEMA's Protection and National Preparedness (PNP) works to ensure
that the Nation is adequately prepared for disasters of all kinds. PNP
includes the National Preparedness Directorate (NPD), which is
responsible for administering the National Training, Measurement, and
Exercise Programs, funded through the State and Local Programs
appropriation. Additional preparedness activities are also performed by
the Grant Programs Directorate (GPD), which manages a grant portfolio
that includes the Homeland Security Grant Program, the Port Security
Grant Program, the Transit Security Grant Program, and the Assistance
to Firefighters Grants. PNP strives to achieve a Nation prepared
through a comprehensive cycle of planning, organizing, equipping,
training, exercising, evaluating and continuous improvement.
Furthermore, FEMA, in partnership with the Advertising Council,
developed Ready (www.ready.gov) as a National public service campaign
to educate and empower Americans to prepare for and respond to all
emergencies, including natural disasters and potential terrorist
attacks. The goal of the campaign is to get the public involved and
ultimately to increase the level of basic preparedness across the
Nation.
While we continue to work toward measuring the effectiveness of all
FEMA's investments in the Nation's preparedness capability, we are
confident that it has grown significantly over the past several years
as a result of an increase in planning, assessment, analysis, training
and exercise efforts, as well as a renewed commitment to preparedness
fostered at the National, State, local, Tribal, and territorial levels.
Since 2005, FEMA has sponsored over 700 National, Federal, regional,
State, and local direct support exercises.
FEMA Regions reviewed and assessed plans from 131 jurisdictions as
part of the 2010 Nationwide Plans Review. This latest report assessed
the capability of State and local governments to execute an emergency
operations plan during a catastrophic incident at approximately 79
percent, a nearly 40 percent increase in planning capacity from the
2006 Nationwide Plans Review.
To ensure that FEMA is addressing the needs of the whole community
in all of its preparedness activities, FEMA revised its Comprehensive
Preparedness Guide (CPG) 101 to incorporate planning considerations for
individuals with functional and access needs, individuals with limited
English proficiency, diverse racial and ethnic populations, children,
and household pets/service animals. FEMA, in partnership with others in
the Department of Homeland Security, also established the Voluntary
Private Sector Preparedness Accreditation and Certification Program, in
recognition of the important relationship between resilient businesses
and the recovery of communities affected by disasters.
In 2010, FEMA trained more than 2 million homeland security and
emergency management officials and first responders; conducted more
than 250 Federal, State, and local exercises; and provided 120
technical assistance deliveries for fusion centers, planning, and
critical infrastructure/key resources. FEMA also conducted National
Level Exercise 2010 to evaluate Federal, State, and local partners'
emergency preparedness and coordination capabilities in response to an
improvised nuclear device detonation.
Exemplifying the value of these efforts, the State of Tennessee
established a comprehensive exercise program through a partnership
between the Office of Homeland Security, Public Health, and the
Tennessee Emergency Management Agency. It has successfully combined
grant funding from homeland security and public health grants for this
integrated exercise program. More than 60 exercises have been conducted
to date. Partnerships, relationships and planning developed during the
comprehensive exercise program have enhanced our ability to respond as
multi-jurisdictional teams to natural disasters, which came into play
when Tennessee experienced multiple disasters during the spring and
summer of 2010.
Logistics
FEMA's Logistics Management Directorate (LM) is FEMA's major
program office responsible for the policy, guidance, standards,
execution, and governance of logistics support, services, and
operations. Its mission is to provide an efficient, transparent, and
flexible logistics capability for the procurement and delivery of goods
and services to ensure an effective and timely response to disasters.
In 2005, logistics was a branch function within the Response
Division, with limited funding for personnel and assets. At the time,
the Logistics Branch had 28 Permanent Full-Time Employees, and most of
its workforce consisted of temporary employees with little or no
training. In addition, the FEMA Logistics Branch did not possess a
self-assessment tool to assist States in evaluating their logistics and
operational capabilities.
LM was elevated from a branch to directorate-level in April 2007,
and now has a robust capability that is flexible and adaptable to meet
unpredictable demands of all-hazards support. LM has made significant
progress in permanent staffing, increasing the percentage of full-time
employees by over 10 percent last fiscal year.
Some examples of FEMA's 2010 logistics accomplishments include the
following:
FEMA was able to fulfill more than 97.5 percent of orders
for life-sustaining commodities (including meals, water, tarps,
cots, blankets, etc.) within the time frame requested. During
the first quarter of 2011, FEMA Logistics has reached a 100
percent on-time delivery rate;
LM and GSA announced the opening of a new fully automated,
state-of-the-art Distribution Center in Atlanta, Georgia; and
LM developed a Logistics Capability Assessment Tool (LCAT)
for use by States to improve readiness, increase response
capacity, and maximize the management and impact of homeland
security resources. LM has trained all 10 Regions on LCAT,
conducted briefings for 41 States and territories, and
facilitated 19 LCAT workshop sessions with States and
territories.
During the recent 2011 Mid-West/East Coast Winter Storm, FEMA's
Logistics team supported the Regions and States by deploying essential
supplies (i.e., generators, meals, water, cots, blankets, and infant/
toddler kits) to pre-designated locations prior to the storm's impact.
The initial supply requirements were received, promptly filled, and
ready for issuance to State and local governments by the required
delivery date. As the storm moved towards the Northeast, the Logistics
teams worked closely with the Regions and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to redirect generators to meet the changing needs.
As a result of the FEMA logistics improvements that supported these
and other efforts, a July 2010 Department of Homeland Security Office
of Inspector General (OIG) report concluded that FEMA ``has made great
strides to improve its logistics capability . . . [G]iven these recent
initiatives, FEMA is better prepared now than at any previous time for
dealing with a catastrophic disaster.''\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General,
``FEMA's Logistics Management Process for Responding to Catastrophic
Disasters,'' OIG-10-101 (July 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mission Support
FEMA's Mission Support Bureau integrates FEMA's business operations
and support services within a single oversight structure, and is
responsible for providing the support, tools, and resources needed to
build, sustain and improve our capabilities. The major Bureau areas of
responsibility are human capital, information technology, procurement,
security, facilities management, health, safety, and records
management.
Recognizing that our success as an agency depends upon a trained
and talented workforce, I made hiring a priority when I came to FEMA.
When I began here in fiscal year 2009, FEMA's staffing fill rate was at
79 percent. Today, the agency is at a 93 percent fill rate, and
includes the redirection of positions to our ten FEMA Regions as a part
of our Regional re-empowerment effort to facilitate emergency
preparedness, coordination, and planning at the local level.
Also in 2009, I began a project to improve FEMA's work environment
for current and future employees, an effort that has since come to be
known as the FEMA Workforce Enhancement Initiative. This collaborative
initiative has brought together employees from all levels of the agency
in workgroups to develop and implement more efficient and meaningful
ways to improve FEMA's workforce. The areas of focus included
recruitment, hiring, retention, performance management, career
progression structure, and developmental initiatives and opportunities
for employees.
FEMA recognizes that every employee is an emergency manager, and
should be ready for deployment if needed. To that end, in early 2010,
FEMA transferred the efforts of the credentialing system started by the
Disaster Workforce Division to the Deputy Administrator for Protection
and National Preparedness, resulting in a National Credentialing
Program that focused on a Government-wide and holistic approach to
disaster surge staffing. The National Credentialing Program coordinates
activities, develops policies, and recommends guidance and standards
for credentialing all FEMA personnel and State, Tribal, and local
officials who require access to disaster areas or FEMA facilities
during an emergency. This program will also ensure unity of effort in
line with the National Response Framework.
As a result of these and other efforts, FEMA is continuing to build
the Nation's emergency management team with our partners at all levels,
and forging a more effective support infrastructure.
iii. fema's fiscal year 2012 budget request
As the President made clear in his State of the Union address, the
current budget climate requires us to take a hard look at our agency
and make tough decisions on how to spend limited taxpayer funds. The
administration's proposed budget provides FEMA with the funds to
fulfill its mission of ensuring domestic resilience to disasters while
reducing spending in several areas through efficiencies and innovative
thinking. I would like to take the opportunity to provide a brief
overview of the proposed FEMA budget for fiscal year 2012.
State and Local Programs
Through the State and Local Programs (SLP), FEMA helps State and
local governments prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover
from incidents of terrorism and other catastrophic events. This program
provides for grants, training, exercises, and other support to assist
Federal agencies, States, territories, and Tribal and local
jurisdictions.
The President's proposed budget for fiscal year 2012 would sustain
Federal funding of more than $3.84 billion for State and local
preparedness grants, highlighting the Department's commitment to
getting resources into the hands of State and local first responders
who are often best positioned to detect and respond to terrorism,
natural disasters, and other threats. Even in this difficult budget
environment, the administration recognizes the importance of
maintaining funding for State and local governments as they prepare for
major disasters and emergencies of all kinds.
The agency requests $1 billion for State Homeland Security Grant
Programs (SHSGP) and $50 million for Operation Stonegarden (OPSG), and
requests $13 million in fiscal year 2012 resources towards the Citizen
Corps Program (CCP). SHSGP continues to provide funding for grant
recipients to build capabilities to protect and prepare State and local
governments to respond to acts of terrorism, large-scale disasters, and
public health emergencies. OPSG continues to enhance and coordinate
joint mission border protection priorities and activities across
Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies and Tribal
governments. CCP activities help support local community resilience
goals and strategies, including: outreach and education on personal
preparedness; integration of nongovernmental assets and personnel in
preparedness and response protocols; improved plans for emergency
notifications, evacuation, and sheltering; and increased citizen
participation in community safety. CCP strengthens the Department's
activities with more than 2,300 Citizen Corps Councils in jurisdictions
covering 78 percent of the U.S. population and operating in all 50
States and six U.S. territories.
FEMA requests $191.663 million for the Training, Measurement, and
Exercise Program for fiscal year 2012. FEMA will apply efficiencies and
eliminate redundant activities identified through working with State
and local governments.
Finally, FEMA requests $1.57 billion for the Metropolitan
Statistical Area (MSA) Preparedness Program in fiscal year 2012. The
agency will continue to focus MSA Preparedness Program grant resources
on activities supporting the Department's highest prioritized mission,
``Preventing Terrorism and Enhancing Security.'' Included in the MSA
Preparedness Program is the Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI). The
fiscal year 2012 budget request directs additional resources to UASI,
which provides funding to support regional collaboration on enhanced
security and terrorism readiness in the Nation's highest-risk urban
areas. UASI grant requests continue to fund prevention, protection,
response, recovery initiatives and capabilities directed at threats or
acts of terrorism.
In order to maximize the ability of State decision-makers to set
priorities and to reduce administrative barriers to grants, the
administration's budget request, like the 2011 request, proposes to
consolidate a number of individual grant programs (including grants for
Driver's License Security/Real ID, Interoperable Emergency
Communications, and Buses) and make them part of the broader grant
programs such as UASI and State Homeland Security grants. This
consolidation will increase overall funding for UASI and State Homeland
Security grants while reducing the number of separate grant programs,
which ultimately decreases the number of applications a State will need
to submit.
The administration's budget request also proposes to consolidate
the Emergency Management Performance Grants and the Assistance to
Firefighter Grant Programs into the SLP. These two grant programs are
discussed below.
Emergency Management Performance Grants
Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPGs) are formula grants
provided to assist State and local governments to sustain and enhance
the effectiveness of their emergency management programs. The proposed
fiscal year 2012 EMPG program provides $350 million to continue
assisting State and local jurisdictions in improving their overall
emergency management systems. EMPG grant recipients establish, expand,
and maintain effective partnerships with neighboring jurisdictions to
develop emergency management plans, conduct training and exercises, and
procure necessary resources to assist in the event of any catastrophic
emergency. Under this proposed budget, EMPG grants continue to be
distributed on a formula basis.
Assistance to Firefighter Grant Programs
This program is comprised of Assistance to Firefighter Grants
(AFG), Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER)
Grants, and Fire Prevention and Safety Grants (FP&S). The combination
provides support to fire departments and non-affiliated emergency
medical services (EMS) to improve the readiness and capability of local
first-responders during all-hazards emergencies, including firefighting
and EMS operations.
AFG awards grants directly to fire departments and non-affiliated
EMS organizations throughout the United States to support 1-year
projects that improve the effectiveness and safety of the Nation's
first responders in homeland security, firefighting, and EMS
operations. Under its authorizing legislation, AFG must also expend a
minimum of 5 percent of appropriated funds under FP&S for fire
prevention activities. SAFER grants provide funding directly to fire
departments in order to help them increase the number of trained
``front line'' firefighters available in their communities. The goal of
SAFER is to enhance the local fire departments' abilities to comply
with staffing, response, and operational standards.
The fiscal year 2012 request includes $670 million for these
programs. Included in this amount are $420 million for SAFER Grants to
rehire laid off firefighters and retain veteran first responders--
totaling 2,300 firefighter positions--and $250 million for AFG and
FP&S, in order to fund equipment, training, vehicles, and related
materials. The amount requested for SAFER in fiscal year 2012 reflects
the reality that effective fire safety programs require both equipment
and personnel. While the $5 billion we have provided over the past
several years through AFG has furnished fire departments with
equipment, vehicles and other necessities, we must ensure that States
and localities have the necessary personnel to perform the task at
hand. This means rehiring laid-off firefighters, increasing fire
department staffing to be consistent with nationally recognized
consensus standards, supporting veteran first responders, and providing
our State and local partners with the tools they need to keep our
country safe.
Management & Administration
The Management and Administration (M&A) appropriation provides core
mission funding for the development and maintenance of an integrated,
Nation-wide capability to prepare for, mitigate against, respond to,
and recover from the consequences of major disasters and emergencies.
M&A supports core operations for all FEMA organizations, providing
resources for mission activities and administrative support. M&A
resources are directed to both regional and headquarters operations.
The fiscal year 2012 President's budget request of $815.099 million
for the M&A appropriation reflects FEMA's priority to manage resources
more effectively across the Federal Government while ensuring the
Nation's resilience from disasters. The agency has reexamined its
current allocation of resources among existing programs to focus on
those programs that have the most significant impact on the agency's
ability to fulfill its emergency management mission. Moreover, FEMA
will focus on streamlining current business processes and harnessing
the use of innovative technologies.
FEMA will continue to look at ways to adjust our organization and
unify enterprise activities to ensure that resources are adequately
utilized and allocated across components. Additionally, as we move
forward, our goal is to complete program evaluations to identify
duplicative activities and services within our components and
reallocate those resources to needed areas.
Flood Insurance and Mitigation
FEMA's Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration (FIMA)
implements a variety of programs authorized by Congress that help
mitigate the impact of disaster by breaking the cycle of disaster
damage, reconstruction, and repeated damage. Mitigation is achieved
through three critical components--analyzing risk, reducing risk, and
insuring for risk.
FEMA requests $102.7 million in fiscal year 2012 for the Flood
Hazard Mapping and Risk Analysis Program. These appropriations come
through the Flood Hazard Mapping and Risk Analysis and the NFIF
discretionary accounts, and are used to analyze and produce flood
hazard and flood risk data and map products to communicate flood hazard
risk and related technical services. With fiscal year 2012 funding,
FEMA will focus on reviewing and updating flood hazard data and maps to
accurately reflect flood hazards for the areas with the highest flood
risk and greatest update need.
Funding for the National Flood Insurance Program is derived from
two primary sources. Mandatory flood insurance premiums are used to pay
out claims and to provide funding to support the operating and
administrative costs associated with maintaining the program, as well
as three grant programs that reduce future flood claims. FEMA estimates
mandatory premium collections of $3.103 billion in fiscal year 2012.
This is an increase of $37.2 million over the estimate for fiscal year
2011 and is due to policy rate increases. Also, the discretionary
policy fee income is paid by flood insurance policy holders in order to
support the cost of administering the NFIP, which includes floodplain
management, flood mapping, flood-related grants, and NFIP management.
For fiscal year 2012, FEMA projects fee collections of $171.0 million,
an increase of $2.0 million from fiscal year 2011.
FEMA requests $84.9 million in fiscal year 2012 for the PDM grant
program. Funding will be used to: Fund projects and plans through a
competitive process; support the National grant competition; support
salaries and operating expenses; and fund program support and the
technical assistance contracts used for the preparation, review, and
processing of PDM grants. In addition, the PDM program will continue to
reduce administrative costs to ensure that more of those funds are
obligated to State, local, and Tribal governments to reduce risk.
Emergency Food and Shelter
The fiscal year 2012 request of $100 million for the Emergency Food
and Shelter Program (EFSP) will allow FEMA to continue to supplement
nonprofit and governmental organization emergency food and shelter
programs by contributing an estimated 46.5 million meals, 3.1 million
nights of lodging, 74,700 rent or mortgage payments, and 155,400
utility bill payments.
It is important to note that EFSP is not a disaster program and is
not designed to serve disaster survivors. Rather, the program is
designed to serve the public on an on-going basis to assist in the
fight against hunger and homelessness by supplementing the funding of
qualified local service delivery agencies.
Disaster Relief Fund
Pursuant to the Stafford Act, the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF)
provides a no-year base against which FEMA can direct, coordinate,
manage, and fund eligible response and recovery efforts associated with
domestic major disasters and emergencies. Through the DRF, FEMA can
fund authorized Federal disaster support activities as well as eligible
State, territorial, Tribal, and local actions, such as providing
emergency protection and debris removal. The DRF also funds:
Repair and reconstruction of eligible disaster-damaged
infrastructure;
Hazard mitigation initiatives;
Financial assistance to eligible disaster survivors; and
Fire Management Assistance Grants.
FEMA requests $1.8 billion for the DRF in fiscal year 2012. FEMA is
taking aggressive action to maximize the balance of the DRF, including
identifying excess funds previously obligated for past disasters and
returning them to the DRF. In fiscal year 2010, FEMA recovered over
$2.62 billion from prior year obligations to replenish the DRF.
Coupled with prior year recoveries and carryover funds, the DRF is
projected to support the 5-year average obligation level for non-
catastrophic disaster activity (excluding extraordinary events, such as
the series of 2004 hurricanes in Florida, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita
in 2005, the California Wildfires of 2007, and Hurricanes Gustav and
Ike in 2008).
iv. implementing productivity and efficiency tools
FEMA's budget request for fiscal year 2012 strikes the appropriate
balance between allowing us to fulfill our core mission of ensuring
resilience to disasters, while also becoming more efficient and nimble
in our efforts. However, a focus on efficiency is important to us not
only in constrained fiscal times; rather, it is always an essential
element of our ability to succeed. The unpredictable and exigent nature
of emergency management requires us to provide fast and effective
service to communities who need it, often on extremely short notice. In
short, efficiency is always key to operational effectiveness. For that
reason, we have begun implementing efficiency measures that include
common-sense cost-cutting tools and outcome-based strategic planning,
as well as leveraging our stakeholders as force multipliers throughout
all aspects of the emergency management team.
Good Stewardship of Taxpayer Dollars
While we at FEMA work to ensure resilience to disasters, we also
bear the responsibility for demonstrating good stewardship over
taxpayer dollars. This means minimizing and eliminating waste, fraud,
and abuse of our programs and policies, and implementing common-sense
measures to cut down on costs wherever possible.
Since its inception in 2006 through the end of 2010, FEMA's Fraud
Branch has investigated nearly 3,200 disaster fraud complaints and
referred more than 2,400 fraud cases to the DHS Office of the Inspector
General (OIG) for criminal investigative review and/or prosecution. The
FEMA Fraud Branch has also prevented $5.5 million in disaster payments
from being improperly disbursed. Finally, physical security initiatives
netted FEMA approximately $23.5 million in funds de-obligated back to
the agency.
PKEMRA created several provisions in order to prevent waste, fraud,
and abuse in the contracting and relief aid processes. To this end,
FEMA implemented new software in 2007 that communicates real-time data
to caseworkers in order to prevent duplicate housing payments. FEMA
also implemented checks in the National Emergency Management
Information System that trigger additional review for ``high risk''
recipients before assistance is delivered, in order to prevent
potential fraud. These actions allow FEMA to balance the need to
quickly provide disaster aid to victims with our responsibility to be
good stewards of the DRF.
Moreover, FEMA continues to realize significant savings through
technological and human capital efficiencies. As an example, FEMA
returned $1.99 billion to the DRF through a focused effort to identify
unused funding on disaster contracts. We also realized $7.8 million in
savings in wireless telecommunications by shutting down unused lines of
service. Wherever possible, we will continue to undertake cost-cutting
measures that will allow us to maximize the use of limited funding.
Strategic Planning and Organization
While FEMA continues to implement cost-cutting measures in all
aspects of our work, we must also look at our larger organization to be
sure we are as nimble and efficient as we can be. FEMA has undertaken
several initiatives in that regard.
On October 1, 2009, the Response, Recovery, Federal Coordinating
Officer Program, and the Logistics Management Directorate were combined
under a new Office of Response and Recovery to more closely align the
organizational structure with FEMA's operational mission. This
reorganization has enhanced FEMA's ability to perform its mission of
coordinating and providing an immediate Federal disaster response and
recovery capability with State, local, and Tribal partners in
anticipation of, or immediately following, a major disaster.
In February 2010, as part of a broader headquarters realignment,
the Disaster Reserve Workforce and Human Capital Divisions of FEMA were
integrated into the new Office of the Chief Component Human Capital
Officer (OCCHCO). As a result, the Disaster Workforce Division now
oversees the readiness and deployment functions for the entire disaster
workforce of full-time and reserve employees. Additionally, a critical
mass of staffing in the budget, policy, and system areas are able to
provide more effective services to both the institutional and
deployable workforces.
In addition to organizational re-alignment, we also value the
importance of outcome-based strategic planning as a tool that will
allow us to ensure our activities align with FEMA's strategic
objectives. With that goal in mind, earlier this year we began
implementing FEMAStat, a management process to facilitate the conduct
of systematic discussions about the performance of FEMA's Offices,
Directorates, and Regions. The purpose of FEMAStat is to frame
productive discussion and analysis that advances FEMA's performance. We
have already conducted several meetings and are confident in FEMAStat's
ability to help us identify additional performance deficits and close
those gaps to make us a stronger and more resilient agency.
We are also currently in the process of establishing an Innovation
Council, pursuant to Initiative Four of FEMA's Strategic Plan for
fiscal years 2011-2014. The purpose of the Council is to help foster a
culture of innovation and creativity within FEMA. Based on a successful
program created by the U.S. Coast Guard, the Innovation Council will
bring new ideas to FEMA leadership and achieve implementation.
Whole Community
Perhaps the most important initiative we must undertake, regardless
of the budget environment, is to recognize our efforts are part of an
interconnected plan of action. This ``Whole Community'' approach to
emergency management provides the appropriate framework for leveraging
the expertise and resources of our stakeholders at all levels, both
governmental and non-governmental.
FEMA continues to play an integral role as part of the emergency
management community. However, we know that we cannot and should not do
it alone. ``Whole Community'' requires a team approach. We know the
capabilities of Federal agencies, which can be leveraged in the event
of a disaster to provide a robust Federal response. We know of the
importance of effective coordination with State, local, and Tribal
governments, who provide direct, on the ground experience and who
usually have initial and primary responsibility for disaster response.
We know that non-governmental organizations--like faith-based and non-
profit groups--and private sector entities possess knowledge, assets
and services that Government simply cannot provide. An effective
disaster response involves tapping into all of these resources.
Finally, and most importantly, we know of the great capacity of
individuals to care for their families, friends, neighbors and fellow
community members, making our citizens force multipliers rather than
liabilities. Together, we make up the whole community, and we all have
an important role to play. We must engage all of our societal capacity,
both within and beyond FEMA, to work together as a team. Through
engaging the ``Whole Community,'' we maximize our limited funding and
leverage the capabilities of our partners, who play a critical role in
the process.
A ``Whole Community'' approach is a valuable efficiency and cost-
saving tool; yet more importantly, it is critical to our collective
effectiveness to succeed in preparing for, protecting against,
responding to, recovering from, and mitigating all hazards.
v. conclusion
Over the past several years, FEMA has undergone a major overhaul,
thanks in large part to the significant resources provided to us by
Congress. This year, we find ourselves in a budgetary climate that
requires us to become more efficient in our efforts while maintaining
focus on our core mission, and we must make difficult choices in the
process.
As I mentioned earlier, the administration's proposed budget
provides FEMA with the funds to fulfill its mission of ensuring
domestic resilience to disasters, while reducing spending in several
areas through efficiencies and innovative thinking. Please be assured
that we will continue to fulfill our most important mission of
supporting our citizens and first responders to ensure that as a Nation
we work together to build, sustain, and improve our capability to
prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate
all hazards.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss the proposed FEMA budget for fiscal year 2012. I am happy to
answer any questions the subcommittee may have.
Mr. Bilirakis. Now I will recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Administrator, with regard to the Functional Needs Support
Services guidance I referenced in my opening statement, can you
please clarify when this guidance applies? Does it apply to
emergency shelters during a disaster, long-term shelters after
a disaster, or both? How are you working with emergency
management officials on this issue to ensure that they can
continue to be able to serve the people in their area?
Mr. Fugate. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. With the Functional
Shelter Needs Guidance that we put out, this actually is based
upon the program that was utilized in Texas to ensure that
their shelters were accessible. There have been a couple of
more recent developments that occurred from the Department of
Justice. Most recently, the city of Los Angeles was held in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act for not being
inclusive with the public that has disabilities in their
programs. So we are trying to provide this information in such
a way that it complies with Department of Justice guidance in
their interpretations of how the Americans with Disabilities
Act would apply to sheltering.
But we are also recognizing that, particularly in Florida's
case, but along the Gulf Coast, you have a situation where you
have evacuation shelters which are very short-term that are not
really designed to provide long-term accommodations and care
versus those shelters that may be set up after the disaster. I
think there are some areas there when you look at the issue of
reasonable accommodation, that those things can be addressed.
But it comes back to a very fundamental concept, and that
is, when we open up an emergency shelter for an evacuation in a
disaster, we should not find ourselves in the situation that we
would turn people away merely because they presented a
disability and had to go to another special facility. But when
it comes to some of the longer-term support, I think those are
areas that you can work on. But you really have to start off
with the idea of: If I am using a shelter that is not
accessible in the first place, is there another, better
location I can use?
In many of the Gulf Coast States, we primarily used public
school systems as shelters. As you remember, in the Florida
Legislature, they provide lots of funding to harden those
shelters, but they don't always have the bathrooms or the
shower facilities for longer-term accommodations. Those are the
kinds of things that we need to go through and look at. But to
turn somebody away because they present with a disability is
one of our primary concerns that how do we get to where we are
not having to do that?
To be brief with this, and to give you more time for
questions, one of the things we have looked at in FEMA is we
used to have two different types of cots, regular cots for
general population shelters and then what we called special
needs cots. What we are trying to move towards, and we are
putting out bids for and looking for the specs now to get a
manufacturer in the United States to build them, is go to a
universal cot so that you don't have to differentiate. It is a
cot that is high enough and stable enough so that if somebody
needed to self-transfer from a wheelchair, they can do it. But
also it means that instead of trying to maintain two separate
inventories, we go to one device that is universal and is
inclusive. We are not there yet either. We are having to work
and budget and build this into our capabilities. But these
guidelines essentially provide us that road map to get there.
So when it comes down to that emergency phase, I think
there is more work we can do with local governments on what
that reasonableness is, but it cannot start with the discussion
that we are going to turn people away from a shelter because we
can't accommodate them and send them somewhere else based upon
a disability. It has to be based upon what are those needs
going to be in the first 24 to 48 hours versus a longer-term
shelter where they may be there for a week or more.
Mr. Bilirakis. But you will continue to work with us on
this issue as well as the local?
Mr. Fugate. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you.
I am concerned that the President's budget proposes to
eliminate the Metropolitan Medical Response System Grant
Program as a stand-alone program and instead roll it into the
State Homeland Security Grant Program. MMRS provides funding to
enhance the ability to respond to mass-casualty incidents. Do
you know, how will the Department work to ensure that medical
preparedness remains a priority within the large grant program?
Mr. Fugate. To take the language that is actually in the
MMRS and put that into the grant guidance for the State
Homeland Security grants, which are available to the State to
go State-wide, as well as the Urban Security Initiative grants,
which are more specific to the metropolitan areas that are
large city areas that we provide grant funding to. Again, we
find that these programs have overlap. They are not exactly the
same. But by moving that grant guidance in, we can eliminate
the management of multiple grants, and also we eliminate having
grants that have similar types of capabilities. By moving that
language in, we can address the needs of making sure that the
medical response capabilities remains, but giving local and
State authorities where they want to put in that money and what
they want to continue to fund.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much.
If we stick to the 5-minute rule, I believe that we will
have time for a second round of questions.
So now I will recognize Ms. Richardson, the Ranking Member,
for 5 minutes.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Fugate, you discussed, as I did in my opening
comments, about the idea of consolidating the grants. Could you
share with us your commitment to ensure that the language that
the State and locals--because I have been in the past
unsupportive of this idea--if this were to happen, can you
ensure that the language within the grant applications would
include that the State or locals would have to verify that
those other sections are being met?
So let us say, for example, they decide to put all their
money into--you know, let us say Fire Assistance or something
like that, and they put nothing into, you know, Citizens Corps,
that they would have to demonstrate in their application that
everything of Citizens Corps is, in fact, being met, and so
hence their decision to focus their dollars otherwise.
Then the second piece, would be would you be willing to put
a process in place to validate that, in fact, your system is
working? So you can have a county or someone that comes back
and says, oh, yeah, you know, we are doing it right; and yet we
go to the region, and everyone says, oh, no, we don't have
money, and we can't do this and that. So we put a system in
place to be able to validate with those other end-users that
these needs are being addressed.
Mr. Fugate. Well, in the two-part question, I think the
first part is, yes, we plan to put that into the grants
guidance. I guess my question back would be: How prescriptive
are you looking for? What we are trying to avoid is putting in
percentages, if you have to spend X amount in certain areas
because these are the areas of focus, and allow them to have
that.
The other part of was coming back from the National
Preparedness Task Force, was: How do we measure this
preparedness and start looking at some of these benchmarks and
going, okay, we have got this area we are pretty strong in, and
this is an area we need to fund and put priorities on, but is
that reflective of the National priorities and the intent of
Congress in providing those funds?
So it really comes back to, yes, we want to put that
language in there. The question will be: How prescriptive would
it be? Because what we will get from the local and State
government is they are going to want more flexibility, but
understand your concern that in lieu of funding something
against something else, we want to make sure that we are still
addressing the interest in the parties that Congress set in the
base funding. These are the areas that we should be focusing on
to enhance capabilities at the local and State level.
Ms. Richardson. I am going to give you a compliment, sir. I
have been very impressed with how you have run FEMA, and I look
forward to your recommendation of what you think that should
be. I would be happy to look at it and see if I disagree. But I
have a tremendous amount of respect for you.
I think the key is as long as we are holding them
accountable to have to say in writing that they are meeting
these other aspects, so if you see that they are not, then you
would have to then consider our side and say, maybe this whole
consolidation isn't working, and we do need to put in these
requirements. But we have got to have some sort of measurements
or some sort of documentation to verify that on the front end.
But I will work with you on that.
Mr. Fugate. We will have staff put together some of that
and provide you some examples of what we would look at and get
your input.
Ms. Richardson. Okay. Thank you, sir.
My next question would be: As you are well aware, State and
local budgets depend upon Federal dollars to supplement their
homeland security needs. Considering that grant guidance awards
are dependent upon the passage of appropriations bills, what
impact will passage of an appropriations measure in the middle
of a fiscal year have on the grant award process this year and
for next year?
Mr. Fugate. Well, in the current process, we are held up.
Probably one of the more immediate concerns that--I believe
there are some folks in the audience representing the
International Association of Emergency Managers, which are
primarily our local emergency managers--is the Emergency
Management Preparedness grant funds. These are 50/50 grant
funds the States and locals match with 50 percent State and
local dollars, 50 percent Federal, that are tied to the
salaries of many of the employees that provide the planning and
preparedness activities that occur throughout the country. As
we are coming up on many States in the middle of their fiscal
year, a further delay there may start to result in States no
longer able to fund those positions, could result in reductions
in staffing or layoffs. So that is a concern.
The other concern is the short window that we will have
when we do get a budget to get grants executed and provide
grant guidance. What we have been working on is trying to get
everything done up until we get the appropriations so that it
is ready to go. We put out the draft guidance based upon the
original request, then we will adjust that based upon the
actual allocations and authorizations in the budget or any
additional guidance.
But a primary concern, I think, for State and local
governments is really the Emergency Management Preparedness
grants because it is one of the very few grants we have that
actually funds positions in many parts of the country that
would not otherwise have these positions. Because that has 50/
50 money, as they go through their fiscal year, they are
rapidly reaching the point that they can't sustain that without
some indication of that funding.
Ms. Richardson. Mr. Chairman, maybe you and I could have a
follow-up discussion about considering to bring something
forward, stand-alone, that would protect this obvious
vulnerability that we might have.
Mr. Bilirakis. Sure.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you.
I now would like to welcome the Ranking Member of the full
committee Mr. Thompson and recognize him for 5 minutes.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I ask
unanimous consent that my written comments be included in the
record.
Mr. Bilirakis. Definitely.
Mr. Thompson. Good morning, Mr. Administrator. How are you
today?
Mr. Fugate. Doing good, sir.
Mr. Thompson. One of the things that we had a conversation
about in the past is the number of disasters that we haven't
closed out. I think it is probably over 600 or 700. Can you
give the committee a briefing as to where you are and what the
plan is going forward?
Mr. Fugate. Yes, sir. We have gone back and began the
closeout of disasters. As you know, those older disasters
oftentimes have funds that have been allocated but we know will
not be needed that we need to deobligate, put them back into
the Disaster Relief Fund.
Last year we spent a lot of time trying to close out open
Federal missions and contracts that were still out there, but
were no longer needed. This year we are turning our attention
to the disasters that we know the work has been done--we are
literally just waiting for the final closeouts--and putting
teams together, particularly with our chief financial officer,
and going out and doing the financial closeouts of disasters,
but also looking at disasters that work has been done, but we
haven't closed out, like the immediate debris and emergency
public assistance. We still have dollars allocated, but the
State is not going to draw them down--they have already done
their work--and basically get that money back into the Disaster
Relief Fund. So we are looking to close that out.
If you would like, I can get staff to give you kind of an
update on where we are at, how many are open, how many we
closed last year, and what our target is for closing this year.
Mr. Thompson. I would, because I think the Membership of
this subcommittee and the full committee should know that we
have over 700 disasters that are still out here that we are
trying to work on. It is a lot of balls to have in the air at
one time and while trying to anticipate future disasters. I
guess my question is, from a budgetary standpoint, are you able
to roll this money over for those disasters, or is this
included in the annual FEMA budget allocation?
Mr. Fugate. As I understand the terminology, this is non-
year money. So as we are able to recoup money back from the
disasters, it goes back into the Disaster Relief Fund that
would be applied against new disasters and current open
disasters. Last year we were able to recoup out of open
missions that we had not closed out until last year about $2
billion that had been allocated, but was no longer needed. I
mean, this is, again, very substantial, as you point out, why
we have to go back and close these disasters out.
So we are working right now to go back into where we have
provided, through the public assistance program, dollars that
are no longer needed, or the work has been done but has not
been formally released back into the DRF, and close those out
and put the money back into the DRF for the disasters we
currently have and for the future disasters.
Mr. Thompson. Can you, in the information you provide to
us, indicate whether or not the staffing needed to complete
that mission is adequate; and if so, can you project some kind
of timetable for closeout?
Mr. Fugate. We will do that, sir.
Mr. Thompson. With respect to the decentralization of
operations, give the committee some of your feelings as to
whether that succeeded, work in progress, or just what we need
to do.
Mr. Fugate. It is moving well, I think. I mean, I remember
that one of your concerns to me was the tendency that we had
all of these big National contracts, and we weren't hiring
local. We were able to do some significant local contracting in
response to the Tennessee floods as well as the floods in
Georgia. One of the things that our acquisition team did and
took to heart, your direction from last year, was we put
together teams to go out and support the response and
essentially adopt a philosophy that basically says in a
disaster, as much as possible, we need to hire local and buy
local, those services that communities can provide, not bring
them from the outside.
So we can give you an update on that as well, the teams
that are out there. We have been able to demonstrate it in
several of these disasters where we have been able to
significantly increase the amount of local purchasing that we
are doing versus everything coming from the outside.
Mr. Thompson. Just as a backdrop to that, indicate whether
or not it limited your ability to address that emergency by
doing that. Did it cost any more? Was the time frame any longer
because of that? Or if you feel comfortable in answering them
right now, please do.
Mr. Fugate. It was the right thing to do, and it was cost-
effective to do, sir.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you.
Now I want to recognize Mr. Marino from the great State of
Pennsylvania, our vice chair.
You are recognized for 5 minutes, sir.
Mr. Marino. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, administrator. It is good to have you here.
Mr. Fugate. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Marino. I want to thank you for entertaining us last
month. I look forward to coming back.
Let us switch gears here a little bit. Let us talk about
procedure. Being in law enforcement for as long as I have, and
being involved in disasters in my State, what modifications, if
any, and what is your policy on FEMA communicating with the
first-line responders prior to an incident?
Mr. Fugate. Well, on the preparedness phase, we work quite
extensively back through our various associations, through the
various groups in training preparedness. But when it comes to
disaster response, that process does go through the State. It
is not so much policy as the way the statutory language within
the Stafford Act, and how the construct is is that Governors
support their local governments through their emergency process
and, at the point where it would look to require Federal
assistance, make those requests to us. We provide assistance.
Generally in what we would call disasters where they are
seeking primarily recovery assistance in the recovery-
rebuilding assistance to individuals, that process generally
works with us reaching out through the States, working with the
States, and then, as those requests come in, working on those
requests.
But as we know, some disasters can occur with little notice
and can be such that we know it is going to require Federal
assistance. That process is much faster. One of the things that
this Congress did after Hurricane Hugo was amend the Homeland
Security Act to give us more authority to respond prior to a
Governor's request. But in response to a disaster, you are
going to find us working with the Governor's team as we support
local governments.
That is the construct and how it is set up statutorily as
well as how we are organized, but that doesn't mean we don't
talk. In fact, one of the things that we have instituted with
the emergency managers at the local level is not only talking
with our counterparts at the State, but also holding routine
conference calls with our representatives in the International
Association of Emergency Managers, which are primarily
representing the local emergency managers, so they have input
as we are discussing issues and policies.
We are also trying to do something a little bit
differently. I was always very frustrated at the State and
local level that oftentimes we never really felt like there
was--we weren't part of the team. It was almost like FEMA was a
big brother, and we worked for them when a disaster happened.
We are trying to change that and go, no, we work for you. We
are a support agency. So as we work through the Governor's
teams, we are trying to maintain that dialogue on a day-to-day
basis in which we prepare, but when we respond, we look to the
Governor's team to support the local responders.
Mr. Marino. Thank you.
I understand the process if there is a disaster, but can
you explain to me what method a first responder, a county would
have concerning information that is required to prevent
situations or to respond to them directly with FEMA? Is that
possible?
Mr. Fugate. Yes, sir. In fact, one of the initiatives we
have taken is that in order to ensure that FEMA understands
what these challenges are, we are currently working to detail
staff to metropolitan cities on a basis where we will assign
people for 3 months to do that directly with cities.
We do a lot of our--particularly through the Urban Security
Initiatives, but through other programs--work directly as part
of a team. We really try to not bypass our State partners, but
actually work with our State partners and local partners as one
team, because the divisions don't really work in a disaster. So
we try to make that information available. We provide that
access through our regional offices. But we also want to make
sure that we are not keeping the State out of the loop. We want
them as part of the team. But we provide that access.
Mr. Marino. My time is limited here. Let us switch it over.
We certainly are aware of the debt that we are in, the budget
cuts that have to be made. What are we doing to assure that the
money, the great money that is out there, it is being used
wisely, we are purchasing the equipment that we need and not
the Cadillac that we do not need? What happens with that
equipment after the disaster?
Mr. Fugate. Well disaster responses, we tend not to buy. We
lease. So we, again, try to minimize our overhead cost by
reoccurring cost afterwards. Generally our funding does not
provide for, in the disaster response, purchasing equipment,
but merely leasing what we need during a disaster.
But our grant programs for the State Homeland Security
grants, the Urban Security Initiatives and other grants do
provide for things like vehicles, equipment, detection and
stuff. I think this is one of the areas that in looking at the
National Preparedness Task Force and their recommendations back
to us of how do we measure outcomes and not look at the
widgets, and because of the reduced funding and the pressure
that local and State governments have is really getting down to
what are the things we need to be successful in our response,
not necessarily things that would be nice to have. So this,
again, puts more emphasis, as was pointed out earlier--is doing
a better job of assessing those things that really indicate we
are better prepared and we have capabilities versus merely we
have gone out and expended certain amounts of dollars.
Mr. Marino. Okay. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Bilirakis. We will have a chance for a second round as
well.
Now I would like to give the gentleman from Michigan an
opportunity. You are recognized, sir, Mr. Clarke, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Clarke of Michigan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Fugate, as a new Member of this committee, I
want to share with you that I feel confident that when you
state that you are not going to be cutting back on capabilities
necessarily, but looking at how your Department can be more
efficient, that gives me confidence in how you are operating
FEMA.
I also want to commend you on your service in Florida. You
have a great reputation. I checked you out. The fact that you
know first-hand about what we have to deal with as a volunteer
first responder yourself.
I represent Detroit, the Detroit border sector, and as you
are aware of, it is the busiest border crossing bar none in
North America. We have a huge population center--multicounty,
multijurisdictional population center--international airport, a
large regional water system and other demographics that put us
at high risk of either a terrorist attack or other catastrophic
incident. I have got three questions. They are all related to
the security of the Northern border and that sector in
particular.
But back in 2008, the GAO had recommended that DHS change
its methodology and how it measures vulnerability in
determining how it assesses risks and allocates funds in that
particular grant program. Would that change, by accounting for
regional differences, after the risk assessments for urban
areas?
Mr. Fugate. Well, the short answer is based upon both the
infrastructure and location and population is one factor we
looked at. But we also have what is the threat stream, what is
the intelligence telling us where are things being targeted.
That is what we have used. That has been evolving as we look at
the changing threat of no longer looking at necessarily
adversaries from the outside coming here to attack us, but also
looking at individuals here that may also be part of or may be
organized or unorganized in their efforts to disrupt or attack
the United States.
So the efforts are really based upon what is the existing
infrastructure in populations, but also what the intelligence
community is telling us the threats streams are saying, these
are the areas of interest, these are the areas being mentioned,
and the frequency of that drive those determinations for that
funding.
Mr. Clarke of Michigan. You also mentioned that, you know,
when our first responders aren't in good shape, we are not able
to better protect our homeland. In the city of Detroit, the
first responders are in bad shape because of fiscal issues. Do
you take the security of the first responders and their own
capabilities into consideration in determining the risk
analysis under UASI?
Mr. Fugate. It is basically less about individual
departments as much as we know the size of the agencies and the
level of--based upon the size of the communities and the type
of infrastructure or protection. It is really coming back to
where do we see both the vulnerabilities of the community and
the intelligence which is then used to determine that. Then
based upon that is what kind of additional funding--and if you
can look at the grant programs, when you do get those fundings,
that is really driving at making sure, No. 1, the responders
are trained to deal with weapons of mass destruction and
terrorist attacks, they have the equipment and protective gear
for that, but it also brings in other aspects, such as
intelligence and fusion centers and information to support
that.
Merely building a capability to respond isn't all that
these grants are trying to do. They are also trying to prevent
and deter these threats. So if those are the areas that are
identified, then that funding does go for protection, but it
also goes for a wide range of activities to not only be ready
to respond, but also to try to prevent or deter a threat.
Mr. Clarke of Michigan. Thank you, Administrator.
One last question with the time that I have. It is
regarding Operation Stone Guard. With the Detroit border
sector, it accounts for nearly 10 percent of the Northern
border, yet only 4 miles of that border are under what CBP
considers operational control. In the President's budget
proposal, it limits the eligibility of that program to Southern
border activities. In that context, how do you think that we
can best coordinate border protection among the various
jurisdictions in the northern border, especially in the Detroit
sector, with that shift in Operation Stone Guard and
eligibility to the Southern border?
Mr. Fugate. Well, as a grant administrator, I am not the
one that determines the priorities, but I know that we have
been working closely with Canada on how we expand various
things that would support the Northern border. But the priority
would continue to be the southern bordering States, merely
because of the level of violence that is occurring along those
areas, the drug trafficking, the most recent loss of life,
including an ICE agent.
So that will still remain a priority with the funds that we
have, but as the grants administrator, we take the guidance
that is provided to us by our other components within the DHS
to apply those funds. But it is going to continue to be a
significant focus on the southern borders just because of the
level of violence going down there at this time.
Mr. Clarke of Michigan. Thank you, Administrator Fugate. I
yield back.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you.
Now I would like to recognize Mr. Farenthold from the great
State of Texas. You are recognized, sir, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Farenthold. I just have one question that came from the
Texas Division of Emergency Management. One of the on-going
concerns that we have on the Texas Gulf Coast is the landfall
of the hurricane, something that we all dread, but we all
prepare for. I would like to get clarification about how FEMA
plans to reimburse for emergency measures pre-landfall.
A couple of times we have had a threat of a hurricane
specifically in the Corpus Christi area, and the good Lord took
care of us with a turn in the hurricane, but we had already
spent substantial resources mobilizing ambulances and the like.
Is this something that the States are just going to have to
eat, or does FEMA have some plans to help out with that?
Mr. Fugate. You are not going to like the answer, but guess
what? Responding to the additional evacuation of a hurricane is
a primary responsibility of State and local government. As an
emergency manager in Florida, we had numerous storms that we
evacuated for and never got the first penny from the Federal
Government. It was a cost of doing business in a great area and
a great climate, but we had hurricanes.
The Federal assistance is designed when it exceeds the
capability of the State and local governments. So we look at
the size of the storm, the intensity, the category. We
preposition equipment and move supplies. But merely because an
area does protective measures does not always warrant or
demonstrate or exceed the FIT capabilities. So we do look at
the size of the storm. We look at the amount of evacuation. We
do encourage our States to be proactive, but it is not a
guarantee because they are evacuating there will always be a
declaration.
I went through several hurricanes in Florida where the
State spent over $20 million between the State and local
government responding to, and getting ready for, and never
being hit by a hurricane without the first offer from the
Federal Government. It is unfortunately the price of paradise
we have to prepare for.
Mr. Farenthold. You are not going to find me arguing with
turning as much over to the State and local governments as
possible. But I do think the States need to know what they are
going to be responsible for in order so they can do appropriate
planning. So I don't dislike your answer as much as you would
think, but we do need a level of clarity, and we understand
that living on the coast has its price.
Mr. Fugate. We work very closely through our regional
office, Tony Russell working with the director there in Texas.
I think that we went back and we look at our guidance which
basically says when a major hurricane is threatening, you are
evacuating a large substantial population, an emergency
declaration may be warranted. That does not preclude us from
pre-positioning or moving supplies. We are not going to let a
State fail over this, but we also recognize that it was never
the intention of the Stafford Act to always pay for the
reoccurring cost of being prepared against hazards that are
known and part of a State's history.
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you.
I believe we have time for a second round since we
basically kept to that 5-minute rule. So I will recognize
myself for 5 minutes.
The Department's inspector general issued a report in
December about FEMA's issuance of a Fire Prevention and Safety
grant to ACORN--and we have discussed this in the past,
administrator--wherein the inspector general determined that
FEMA should not have awarded the grants at issue. In its review
it found that FEMA generally focuses its financial and
programmatic oversight on recipients of large grants rather
than using a risk analysis to identify necessary oversight.
FEMA indicated that it has since moved to a risk-based method
to monitor grants.
Can you please discuss FEMA's general method of grants
monitoring and how you determine which grants should receive
additional oversight?
Mr. Fugate. Mr. Chairman, I will be really broad in this
because I would rather provide this in writing, because there
were some very specific processes and procedures that were
implemented in the grant shops based upon the IG's report, and
we did take those and we did implement those.
But in general what we do look at is those organizations
which may not have the financial backing to monitor a grant,
but would otherwise qualify for a grant. We know that some
organizations, they just don't have the institutional history
that would suggest they have done Federal grants before and
understand all the process. We can provide more technical
guidance and look at that. So we don't just rule somebody out
that would otherwise be eligible because they may not have had
a history of managing grants, but we do look very closely at
how and what capabilities they have from the financial aspects
of managing a Federal grant and the requirements that tie to
that as we look at those awards.
The other thing is we have gone back and made sure that we
use a peer review process in those grant programs, and we want
to--again, as the IG pointed out, it is not to get into a
situation where we do have the final say in making those
determinations, but we want to make sure we are not discounting
the peer review process and making arbitrary decisions. So we
try to go back and take those IG findings. We have implemented
them, and we can come back with a more detailed report. But our
goal here is not to say that an organization would not be
eligible merely because they haven't had a history with grants,
but what additional requirements will be placed on that grant
to make sure that those moneys are spent effectively the way
they were intended for, and that they have the accountability
and the financial institutional controls in place to protect
that money.
Mr. Bilirakis. Okay. Very good. But you will provide
something to our committee? I think all the committee Members
would be interested in a response in writing regarding that.
Thank you.
I know Ms. Richardson is interested in this as well. Can
you please provide the subcommittee with an update on the
status of FEMA's efforts to recoup any improperly paid disaster
assistance, how many claims are at issue, and when will
individuals begin to receive notices of debt?
Mr. Fugate. Yes, sir.
Mr. Chairman, the recoupment process was halted by a
Federal court that found that FEMA's process had issues and
essentially required that FEMA withdraw from the Federal
Registry our recoupment process until such time as we were able
to address their concerns. This means that any disaster since
Hurricane Katrina, we have not been able to move forward with
recoupment because we do not have a Federal Registry notice of
that process. We still do recoupment from older disasters.
We are in the final stages of updating that process. We
will be able to report back to you, I think, later this week,
Mr. Chairman, the exact time frames that we are working on. But
our first goal is to go back through about 160,000 in the
Katrina-Rita, plus additional ones from more recent disasters
would require recoupment.
We have gone back through and looked at each one of these
cases to, A, identify: Was there fraud involved? Which is a
different matter, and we don't have to have the Federal
Registry notice for Government recoupment. We are taking those
and looking at prosecution where we have fraud--and you will
periodically see cases where people have been arrested or
sentenced based upon that--and in going back through and making
sure that the people that we think owe us money back, actually
owe us money back, and it is not just an issue that
documentation that we didn't have matched up. So we want to be
fair and equitable about this, not go back and ask people for
money that should have gotten it but we didn't have the
paperwork caught up. Then as we go forward is to look at the
time frames of implementing this. But I think we will be able
to, by the end of this week, come back to you and actually give
you the dates and the time frames as we go through this
process.
But our goal is to begin that recoupment and start that
process back up, particularly since this court case and our
Federal Registry notice, we can't do any recoupments on the
recent disasters. Oftentimes this may be where we had
duplication of payments, where they had insurance that finally
paid but had gotten FEMA assistance earlier and all that money
back. So it is important for us to get this process started
back up.
Mr. Bilirakis. Okay. I will go ahead and yield 5 minutes to
the Ranking Member Ms. Richardson.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Fugate, how does the budget request support the effort
to move forward on implementing the IPAWS system? Could you
give us an update of this situation with American Samoa? Do
they have a current alert system in place?
Mr. Fugate. We have a reduction in the IPAWS program. This
will delay some construction that is scheduled to work on some
of what they called the Primary Entry Point Stations, but it
will not affect us from going forward next year with the
National test of the Emergency Alert System. We can give you
updates on that. But we did make some decision there that we
would delay some of the construction costs, but it does not
mean that the program won't be able to implement the primary
warnings. It just means some of the projects that were
scheduled in the future will be delayed.
We are working with the Government of American Samoa on the
Tsunami Warning System. I don't have the exact information on
where that is at, but we can provide a written report back to
you. That was one of our priorities that I believe we discussed
with you, the importance of getting a Tsunami Warning System,
and not just a system, but actually the training and education
for the population in place as well. I will provide an update
on that.
Ms. Richardson. Okay. Thank you, sir.
The full-year 2012 requests a decrease in the 6.6 reduction
for U.S. Fire Administration. They have an extensive aging
infrastructure. What are your thoughts about that area?
Mr. Fugate. Again, these were not easy decisions to make,
but we had about $23 million in repair and maintenance that we
had throughout the regions as well as with the National Fire
Academy. It is actually called the National Emergency Training
Center because it is the Fire Academy and the Emergency
Management Institute.
We actually have a project right now to do some work on the
heating systems. Again, we are looking at what are the steps to
provide effective systems, but it was not the original
proposal, so we are having to scale back. We will be deferring
maintenance, and we will not be doing some of the enhancements
to some of the structures we would like to do. But again, these
are issues that we have made a decision that we will push those
out versus cutting into the ability to respond, or operate, or
provide additional support and funding to our local and State
partners.
Ms. Richardson. So it is to defer, but not to end.
Mr. Fugate. Many of these will be deferred. Our priorities
are still going to be life safety and accessibility issues we
have, and right now we are continuing to work within our
current budget on funding for right now the heating system out
at the National Emergency Training Center, which needs
replacement, and how we are going to go about doing that this
year.
Ms. Richardson. Mr. Fugate, as you know, I have stated
before my concern about the disability coordinator, and it is
my understanding you have put folks in the various regions.
However, I think it would be a little unrealistic to have a
disability coordinator with absolutely no staff support.
So could you answer--and I have only got 2 minutes left,
and I have two more questions, so if you could summarize your
response quickly.
Mr. Fugate. The office here does have staff. The positions
in the regions are the advisers--they are called integration
specialists--to work with all the programs. But we can give you
an update on the current staffing here. But I think we have
some additional items we can provide you on that as well to
give you an update of the status of that office and its
activities.
Ms. Richardson. Sir, in developing the full-year 2011 and
full-year 2012, the Transit Security Grant Program guidance
evaluation submissions, how will FEMA ensure transparency in
the evaluation and selection of projects and avoid discounting
the risk to a region due to differences in needs, because I
know that has been a big complaint of State and local
government.
Mr. Fugate. We will try our best. This will always be one
that, because of the variations in the various transit systems
and things we are trying to do, we have really been working
with our partners at TSA, the Transportation Safety Agency, on
working on the grant guidance and the direction there. So that
is another one I will have to get back with you. But it is
actually a partnership. Again, we are the grants administrator,
but the Transportation Safety Agency actually provides a lot of
the input on what the priorities should be.
Ms. Richardson. Finally, sir, I have got 46 seconds: How
can we help you? I don't think we say that enough, and I wanted
to give you an opportunity to say if there is something we can
assist you with to better fulfill your mission and the mission
of the folks that work for you.
Mr. Fugate. Well, it was always tempting to go, I can
always use more money, but I know that is not the answer I am
going to give you. But what I do need, you have the ability of
reaching back in your districts, listening to your constituents
and their concerns. I oftentimes feel, as we spoke earlier,
that we have this big megaphone, and we shout out a bunch of
stuff, but we don't always know if it is being heard, or if it
is reaching the right audience, or it is the right issues we
need to address.
So I think the biggest thing that you can do for us is to
give us that feedback and give us the real world versus that
perception that we may have here in Washington, well, this was
going good, but the reality on the ground is that is not what
is happening, and you need to know that.
Our goal is always not to be defensive and say, well,
something went wrong, it wasn't our fault. It is like, no, we
need to work on this and fix it, and if we don't know, we can't
fix it.
Ms. Richardson. I will work with you and the Chairman on
that very issue. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much. We don't hear that very
often in Washington, DC. It is very refreshing. We will take
you up on that offer.
We have Mr. Thompson, the Ranking Member. You are
recognized for 5 minutes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Fugate, I am a resident of a rural area, and
one of the things that you hear people saying is: What do I do
in case of emergency? Let us focus on vulnerable populations,
handicapped and disabled. Have we put in place the operational
scenario that if a disaster occurs, we know who these people
are, and how to move them from that point of harm to safety?
Mr. Fugate. The short answer is there are two schools of
thought. One is we do registrations and try to get people to
self-identify, and the problem with that is most people get
very concerned about giving out their information and
identifying their needs and vulnerabilities. The other is to
look at population and demographics and just plan for it being
inclusive on the front end.
Again, if we are evacuating populations, but we don't have
buses that are wheelchair-accessible, then we have an issue.
But if we are providing buses that are wheelchair-accessible
for the evacuation in the first place, then we have addressed
this.
So this is kind of the idea. We already know that a certain
percentage of our population has various disabilities. We
already know a certain percentage of our population are infants
and children. We already know a certain population is fairly
elderly. Why don't we plan for that instead of trying to bolt
on something after the fact?
So this is what we are trying to do is really focus in on
quit writing all these annexes and go: Look, you are going to
have kids in every disaster, so why aren't you sending infant
and baby supplies when you are sending food? Why are we sending
buses that aren't accessible, because then we have the issue,
well, how do we move people in wheelchairs? ADA has been around
long enough. You can contract buses that have the ability to do
that.
So it gets back to why don't we plan for really what goes
on in communities versus just doing the easy stuff and then
figuring out how we are going to deal with special populations.
Mr. Thompson. So how can FEMA push down that concept to
State and locals that you absolutely have to do this?
Mr. Fugate. In our grant guidance and in how we operate. We
changed one of our basic planning documents, which was the
basis that we provided State and local governments on how to
formulate your community disaster plans.
Historically what we did was every time we found a
population that we didn't take care of in our basic plan, we
wrote an annex. The problem was our annexes were actually more
people than our plan was taking care of. So we have done a
rewrite of that to put these issues on the front end and really
focus on this idea of being inclusive and address these issues
up front.
But part of it is simply grant guidance. I will give you a
very simple example: Smoke detectors. One of the things that
the Assistance to Firefighter grants have done a lot of is
provide grants for smoke detectors. The problem with that is
unless you put specific language in there to be inclusive,
people that are deaf or hard of hearing, a smoke detector does
them no good unless it has the flashing lights and other
devices, and that tends to be a little more costly, and it was
easier just to hand out the smoke detectors. So we wrote grant
guidance in that you needed to factor in and make available in
your smoke detector programs an amount that would meet the
needs for people that were deaf or hard of hearing.
So part of this is getting ahead of it in the grant
guidance and putting in the stuff about how to be inclusive.
The other thing is you got to actually do it, and so building
these things into our program so that we are addressing it.
Mr. Thompson. So can you provide the committee with where
you think we are in identifying these populations?
My reason is in preparing for the hearing, I find that we
have a plan for pets, but not for people with disabilities, and
I think that is ironic. I have a pet, too, and Chico is part of
the family, but I absolutely want us to make sure that we take
care of the other populations. So you see where I am going?
Mr. Fugate. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. Okay. As one of those individuals who was a
victim of Katrina, though not having been directly impacted,
people came to my community, I see you are in the process of
doing this recoupment. I think that it is a real problem for us
now to try to reach back 5 years-plus and ask people to produce
records that we know they don't have. I would say to you, with
all sincerity, you should rethink it, because I think what you
are creating is a fundamental nightmare for families who had
lives interrupted, and I can't imagine being able to produce
those records 5-plus years later to the satisfaction of any
Government agency.
I think the reason I am saying this is, you know, we made
loans to communities to rebuild infrastructure, and we
converted those loans to grants, and everybody said, fine. So
here we are going to take Mr. Jones, we gave him $2,500 5 years
ago, and said, oh, by the way, 5 years later, we need your
records. I think that is asking a bit much of Mr. Jones.
So, if you would, before we go out there and all of us get
inundated with people saying, why are you doing this to me, I
am just getting myself back together, I think it would be
appreciated.
Mr. Fugate. Again, given the authorities that we have, we
have to do the recoupments. We are trying, though, to address
your concerns in making sure that if it was fraud, we are
dealing with it as fraud. If it was the documentation and
things that would support that they were a valid claim, we are
trying to do that on the front end before any notices go out.
So we have been going through about 168,000 of these records.
But we will have to go forward at some point with recoupment,
because not only is it for those disasters, it is for current
disasters as well.
So we understand, and we are very sensitive to this issue,
but we do not have the ability not to go forward where there
was a duplication or people were not eligible, particularly
those that were not residents or directly impacted by the
disaster. We would still require to go seek those funds back.
Mr. Thompson. If the Chairman would allow, I understand
that. But notwithstanding what you are about to do, I think
people would reasonably expect 6 months or a year after the
emergency you come back. It is almost like the IRS showing up
and saying 5 years later, we need your records. So I just think
that hopefully we can provide some relief to you legislatively
that can help with that, but I see that as a problem. The
fraud, go after it. But I think poor bookkeeping and some other
things will get sucked up into that same dragnet.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, sir.
I now would like to recognize Mr. Marino for 5 minutes.
Mr. Marino. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator, I agree with my colleague to a certain
extent. But let us focus on the large-scale fraud issues. Let
us focus on the individuals, if you would, please--it is a
request from me--on those who have profited and are still
profiting from the deceit and fraud that they committed during
one of the most horrendous disasters that we have seen.
Switching gears a little bit again, I read an article and
then saw coincidentally maybe a couple of weeks ago on a
newscast that there was an individual down in Louisiana, a
woman, who was not going to leave her modular home, and she had
nowhere to go, and my heart goes out seeing someone in that
circumstance.
But could you elaborate a little bit on what happened with
or what is being done with those modular homes? Were they
leased? The Federal Government, does it own them? Are they
sitting somewhere not being used?
Mr. Fugate. Those were purchased as part of the temporary
housing program. The ones that are not occupied we have gone
back and retrieved. The ones that are still out there by and
large still have somebody in them. We are working with the
State and local officials. In fact, the City of New Orleans is
moving to have all of those condemned and moved out and get
people to go to other locations.
We have been doing--I think this is something this
committee and the full committee was very concerned about was
not doing good case management and working to help people get
to a long-term solution.
Mr. Marino. Let me interrupt you for a moment, if I could,
please. I don't want to run over my time here.
When you say ``condemned,'' what reason are they condemned?
Are these not liveable anymore? Is this a situation where we
buy all this stuff with good intentions, and now we are done
with it, and we have a shipyard full of modular homes? Could we
not sell them? If it got down to the point people who can't
afford to have a place to live, why don't we just give them to
them?
Mr. Fugate. Some of that has occurred. The ones that have
been turned back in were in the thousands and tens of thousands
and hundreds of thousands, have been surplussed and disposed
of. The ones we currently have are under 1,000. You have to
understand, we were like a couple hundred thousand occupants.
Probably ``condemned'' isn't the right term. What the city
is doing is they are zoning them out and no longer allowing
them to be permitted in the city, basically because they want
to move forward with their recovery, and having temporary
housing units still in neighborhoods----
Mr. Marino. Okay, I understand that, but what is the plan?
What do we do with them?
Mr. Fugate. Well, we are working to try to place those
final families. This is in the less than 1 percentile, but
these are some of the hardest families and individuals to get
long-term solutions to.
Mr. Marino. I understand what you are talking about with
the families. That is important, and that is critical. But what
do we do with the--how many hundreds of millions did we spend
on these units, and what are we doing with them?
Mr. Fugate. Well, it was more than hundreds of millions,
and most of them have already been disposed of. The ones we get
now basically come back in, particularly the travel trailers,
we are not keeping. We are surplussing those as they come back
in. Some of those really don't have much salvage value. Some
do.
But we can give you a report on that. Last year we did a
significant amount of disposal through GSA sales and had
eliminated a large number of those. But, literally, the numbers
were staggering.
Mr. Marino. Are they liveable? Can someone live in them?
Mr. Fugate. Most of the ones that were from the Katrina
response are not recommended or we do not permit them to be
used for permanent housing because of formaldehyde issues. They
have other purposes. They could be used for shorter-term
occupancy, but not for residential purposes.
Mr. Marino. Okay. Could you follow up with me, please, on
what we intend to do with those? Because driving through
Louisiana, I don't want to see acres and acres and acres of
modular homes that could be used and could be sold, or
contractors use them a great deal. If worse comes to worst, if
someone needs a home and they can't afford it, I would rather
see that individual be given that at no cost than just to sit
there and rot away and be an eyesore and what do we do with it.
It is just a scourge on the landscape.
I yield my time. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Bilirakis. I now recognize the gentleman from the great
State of Michigan Mr. Clarke for 5 minutes.
Mr. Clarke of Michigan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Fugate, I look forward to working with you to help
better secure the Detroit sector border, and I yield back my
time.
Mr. Bilirakis. Very good.
So now, Administrator Fugate, I thank you for your valuable
testimony and Members for their great questions. The Members of
the subcommittee may have some additional questions for you,
and we ask you to respond in writing, sir. The hearing record
will be held open for 10 days.
Without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned. Thank
you.
[Whereupon, at 10:42 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Questions From Chairman Gus M. Bilirakis of Florida
Question 1. FEMA has a number of medical countermeasures listed on
the Authorized Equipment List (AEL), which enables States and local
grantees to use grant funds for purchases of such products. These
include countermeasures such as antibiotics that may help after a
biological attack; cyanide antidote kits that may help after a chemical
attack, and prussian blue and potassium iodide that may help after a
radiological or nuclear event.
I am aware that a number of first responders would like to be able
to use grant funds to purchase the anthrax vaccine, a countermeasure
approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), for their voluntary
use. These responders are often on the front lines after a disaster and
see their counterparts on the DOD WMD Civil Support Teams who are
vaccinated and yet they aren't afforded the same protections.
Why hasn't FEMA added the anthrax vaccine to the list of medical
products available to State and local grantees through the AEL?
Answer. FEMA GPD maintains the Authorized Equipment List (AEL). The
AEL is a list that is used by grantees to identify which equipment
types are likely to be approved under the various preparedness grant
programs. Additions to the AEL are mostly the result of recommendations
from stakeholders including the Interagency Board for Equipment
Standardization and Interoperability (IAB). It should be noted that
FEMA has never received a formal request to add the anthrax vaccine to
the AEL. FEMA GPD would consider such a request as we do all requests
but would need to weigh the advantages and disadvantages.
Question 2. Please describe the specific roles and responsibilities
for FEMA and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) in the
management of the Transit Security Grant Program (TSGP).
Answer. In accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding signed
March 22, 2011, between FEMA and TSA:
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is
responsible for designing and operating the administrative
mechanisms needed to implement and manage the grant program.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) provides
programmatic subject matter expertise for security in the
transportation industry and assists by coordinating the myriad
of intelligence information and risk/vulnerability assessments
resulting in ranking and rating rail and mass transit assets.
These two agencies with assistance and cooperation of the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), for rail and mass transit
systems, and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) as
needed for freight rail operations, determine the primary
security architecture of the TSGP.
Question 2a. Does the current management structure delay the review
of applications and allocation of grant funds?
Answer. No. FEMA and TSA regularly meet the statutory deadlines set
in the annual appropriations bills for application review and
allocation of funds.
Question 2b. What steps have you taken to ensure effective
collaboration with TSA with respect to the management of the TSGP and
other agencies such as the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)?
Answer. A signed Memorandum of Understanding between DHS and DOT
dated September 28, 2004 outlines the roles and responsibilities of
each department relative to management of the TSGP. An annex to the
DHS/DOT MOU is in place between FEMA and FRA with specific regard to
the Intercity Passenger Rail (IPR) grant program. This annex is
currently under review to expand upon and provide a more collaborative
approach for both the IPR and the Freight Rail Security Grant Program
(FRSGP).
Question 3. What is the average time frame for the processing of a
TSGP application from the point of submission, through project
approval, to the actual release of funds? What are the primary causes
of delays in this process?
Answer. The submission of the application starts the 60-day period
required for FEMA to take action on grant applications. Grant funding
is then obligated and awarded no later than the end of the fiscal year
in which funds are appropriated, consistent with appropriations
language.
The average time from award date until Release of Funds is
dependent on multiple factors but is generally within 6 months.
Fluctuations in this time frame are attributed to the grantee's
acceptance of award, budget review, and Environmental and Historic
Preservation (EHP) review. These factors are dependent on the
complexity and requirements of the project(s), as well as the prompt
response from the grantee for required information.
Release of funds requires acceptance of the award, final budget
clearance, and EHP clearance. These actions are also dependent upon the
prompt response from applicants/grantees to requests for information
and required internal FEMA procedures. Some projects move quickly
through EHP review while others may take a minimum of 45 days (for
example, those requiring Regional review and consultation with the
State Historical Preservation Officer). The Release of Funds process
requires additional coordination, time, and effort among the program
office and the financial divisions within the Grant Programs
Directorate.
FEMA has improved efficiency within the Environmental Planning and
Historical Preservation (EHP) and Budget Review Processes, while
providing EHP training to grantee Project Managers.
FEMA has also phased the release of planning and design funds prior
to the removal of EHP holds, which provided grantees with the ability
to begin projects and draw down sooner. For the fiscal year 2011 grant
cycle, FEMA plans to conduct budget reviews pre-award, to further
reduce the time frame in releasing grant funds. The below chart
illustrates the current TSGP grant cycle time line.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Question 4. How does FEMA work with other components within the
Department of Homeland Security, such as the Office of Health Affairs
and the Science and Technology Directorate, when developing grant
guidance or other FEMA policies?
Answer. FEMA's Grant Programs Directorate (GPD) works with various
other components within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in
the development, implementation, and management of the agency's
preparedness grants. Federal interagency coordination is essential for
establishing an effective and coordinated response between all levels
of government. The collaboration of multiple components within the
Department ensures that technical and subject matter expertise will be
effectively incorporated into grant guidance and policies. Partners
work in conjunction with GPD staff to provide effective communication
to our stakeholders and grant program communities. Grantees benefit
from a unified response, and support and assistance from the
collaboration between GPD and other agencies within DHS as is evident
in the following examples:
GPD and the DHS Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs and Chief
Medical Officer (ASHA/CMO), Office of Health Affairs (OHA) collaborate
in the Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS) grant program to
provide resources to 124 specific communities in developing,
maintaining, and enhancing medical preparedness systems that are
capable of preventing, protecting from, responding to, and recovering
from a public health crisis or mass-casualty event. GPD serves as the
programmatic agency responsible for the development, execution, and
monitoring of the MMRS grant program, and serves as the fiduciary agent
responsible for grant administration, processing, and monitoring of the
grant awards. OHA serves as the technical subject matter expert in
medical and health security matters.
GPD and the DHS National Protection and Programs Directorate
(NPPD), Office of Infrastructure Protection (IP), Protective Security
Coordination Division (IP/PSCD), work together in the development,
implementation, and management of the Buffer Zone Protection Program
(BZPP). BZPP funds are provided to increase the preparedness
capabilities and resilience of selected jurisdictions with geographic
proximity to high-priority critical infrastructure and key resources
(CIKRs).
GPD and the Office of Policy (PLCY), Screening Coordination Office
(SCO) are the two offices responsible for the development and
implementation of the REAL ID and the Driver's License Security Grant
Programs (DLSGP). GPD is responsible for grant program development and
administration, and PLCY/SCO is responsible for policy development,
program implementation, and strategic oversight. GPD, the DHS National
Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), Office of Emergency
Communications (OEC), and the Science and Technology Directorate (S&T),
Office for Interoperability and Compatibility (OIC), work together in
the development, implementation, and management of the Interoperable
Emergency Communications Grant Program (IECGP). FEMA and NPPD/OEC also
participate in the Emergency Communications Preparedness Center (ECPC)
Grants Focus Group, which coordinates emergency communications grants
with other Federal Departments and agencies. The ECPC Grants Focus
Group developed recommendations to ensure common guidance for all
Federal agencies that administer grants funding emergency
communications. The recommendations will ensure consistent policies
across multiple grant programs to assist State, local, and Tribal
agencies with grant applications and grant administration efforts.
GPD and the DHS Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Office of
Border Patrol (OBP) work together in the development, implementation,
and management of the Operation Stonegarden (OPSG) grant program.
In the Transportation sector, GPD and the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) collaborate to meet responsibilities for
implementing and managing surface transportation security grant
programs, such as the Transit Security Grant Program, Intercity
Passenger Rail Security Grant Program, Intercity Bus Security Grant
Program, Trucking Security Program, and the Freight Rail Security Grant
Program. GPD also works closely with the United States Coast Guard
(USCG) in the administration of the Port Security Grant Program. GPD
relies on TSA and the USCG to provide programmatic subject matter
expertise for the grant programs while GPD provides oversight on all
matters related to grant administration.
GPD also works with subject matter experts within DHS S&T to
coordinate the development of technologies and their policies for
products that eventually are included in the Authorized Equipment List.
In addition, GPD works with the DHS S&T Office of Standards to ensure
that the standards referenced on the Authorized Equipment List are
current.
Question 5a. One of FEMA's planned accomplishments for fiscal year
2011 is to develop performance measures to track FEMA's efficiency in
administering grant programs. In addition, FEMA is developing State
Accomplishment Summaries that will help evaluate how States are
utilizing FEMA grant funds. The development of performance measures and
metrics for FEMA's grant programs is long overdue.
What is the status of these efforts?
Answer. In February 2011 FEMA created a working group with the goal
of developing a core set of measures (7-10) that can be implemented in
the fiscal year 2012 grant process that track how well GPD administers
and manages the preparedness grant programs. The group is meeting
weekly with the goal of having the management and administration
measures fully developed by July 2011. The State Accomplishment
Summaries (SAS) have been completed and are currently under review by
senior members of the administration.
Question 5b. How will FEMA work with State and local stakeholders
in the development of the State Accomplishment Summaries and
performance metrics?
Answer. FEMA conducted outreach to States to collect data for the
SAS. States were directly involved in the development and editing of
all State Accomplishment Summary (SAS) DRAFTS. The National
Preparedness and Assessment Division (NPAD) and the Grant Program
Directorate (GPD) cooperated to closely coordinate the collection of
State and Territory accomplishments received through the FEMA Regions.
These documented accomplishments were then integrated into every DRAFT
SAS. These DRAFTS were then sent back to each State and Territory for
their review and comments, after which NPAD, GPD, and the FEMA Regional
Offices reviewed and validated each DRAFT Summary for submission to
FEMA senior management for final review.
Question 6a. The recent tragedy in Japan has made us reflect on our
own level of preparedness should we ever experience a similar event in
the United States.
Do we have the necessary plans in the rare event of a nuclear
emergency?
Answer. Plans are in place at a variety of levels for an emergency
at a nuclear power plant. The plans and procedures for the communities
located near commercial nuclear power plants define the leadership,
roles, and responsibilities at the local, Tribal, and State levels that
would come into play in the event of a radiological emergency. These
include the necessary interfaces with Federal agencies with direct
statutory responsibilities in such an event. At the Federal level, the
Nuclear/Radiological Incident Annex to the National Response Framework
defines the leadership, roles, and responsibilities for specific types
of events.
Question 6b. Have all countermeasures, such as the stockpiling of
potassium iodide among other options, been looked at?
Answer. The study of radiological countermeasures--such as
potassium iodide (KI), and the stockpiling of these countermeasures--
are primarily the responsibility of the CDC and HHS. The committee
should seek specific information on National countermeasure stockpiling
and effectiveness from these agencies.
Each of the 33 States with a nuclear power plant Emergency Planning
Zone (EPZ) may set up a KI program within that EPZ. In accordance with
the specific laws and policies of each these States, 18 distribute KI
to members of the public in the EPZ both pre-incident and post-
incident, 4 plan to distribute KI to members of the public only post-
incident, and 13 have decided not to distribute KI at all. In the EPZ
States with KI programs, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has funded
replenishment of State stockpiles of KI on a periodic basis to coincide
with expiration dates of the product.
Question 6c. What have we learned so far from the incident in Japan
about our preparedness here at home?
Answer. We have learned a great deal from the events that have
unfolded in Japan, and are actively examining lessons learned for
potential areas that can be addressed in our preparedness efforts.
Following the disaster, a team from the Asian Disaster Reduction Center
(ADRC) and the International Recovery Platform (IRP) deployed from
Kobe, Japan to conduct a Rapid Damage Assessment and Needs Survey. FEMA
has engaged with both of these organizations and has compiled some
preliminary lessons learned. FEMA is testing these lessons learned in
the upcoming National Level Exercise 2011 (NLE 11). NLE 11 is also
incorporating the use of social media which proved particularly helpful
in the timely sharing of shelter information in Japan. FEMA will
continue to examine the lessons learned from Japan and incorporate into
our preparedness efforts as necessary.
Question 7. On December 30, 2009, President Obama issued Executive
Order 13527, Establishing a Federal Capability for the Timely Provision
of Medical Countermeasures Following a Biological Attack. In the event
of an anthrax attack, it is likely that State and local response
capabilities will quickly become overwhelmed. Time is critical because
chances of survival diminish if individuals are not treated with the
required antibiotics within 48 hours of exposure.
I understand that FEMA is taking the lead for the Department of
Homeland Security in working with the Department of Health and Human
Services to develop a Federal rapid response capability that will
supplement the capabilities of local jurisdictions to rapidly
distribute medical countermeasures during a biological attack. There
have been a number of studies that highlight the challenges State and
local first responders will face in establishing the traditional Points
of Dispensing or ``PODs'' and getting antibiotics to each person in
need within the short 48-hour window from the time of exposure.
What solutions have you identified that will ensure medicines get
to those in need within the 48-hour window?
Answer. In response to the Executive Order, the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Health and Human Services
(DHHS), led the development of an operational plan describing how the
United States Government would support States' and local governments'
response to a biological attack by rapidly providing medical
countermeasures (MCM) to affected populations. FEMA and DHHS sent The
Federal Interagency Operational Plan--Rapid Medical Countermeasures
Dispensing to the National Security Council on September 30, 2010.
In furtherance of Executive Order 13527, Section 3, the NSS
requested that the Department of Defense (DOD), in collaboration with
the DHS and the DHHS, conduct an analysis to determine how the DOD can
help support existing State and local medical countermeasure dispensing
operations. DOD is working with three U.S. Urban Area Security
Initiative (UASI) cities (Los Angeles, Chicago, and the National
Capitol Region), to determine how they can assist in expediting medical
countermeasure initiatives following the first 24 hours of a request
for assistance.
USNORTHCOM hosted an MCM Interagency Workshop on March 22-23, 2011
to provide Interagency partners as well as representatives from
Chicago, Los Angeles, and the District of Columbia, an overview of the
USNORTHCOM MCM analysis. A presentation of the USNORTHCOM analysis to
the National Security Staff (NSS) is scheduled for May 18, 2011 with
final Courses of Action (COAs) expected on or about July 1, 2011.
Following the FIOP-MCM submittal to the White House in September,
DHHS and DHS initiated a joint review of the plan to identify critical
near-term planning objectives. The purpose of the review was to ensure
progress compared to the plan and to continue to search for new and
innovative ideas on how the Federal Government's resources could be
leveraged to augment MCM dispensing operations. Members of the
Interagency Planning Community met with several of the top UASI city
health departments to include Los Angeles, Chicago, and the District of
Columbia to discuss areas where Federal resources can be further
leveraged to augment local dispensing resource shortfalls. The visits
with the local health departments revealed robust planning efforts;
however, the need for additional human capital resources to support not
only initial, but also on-going dispensing operations, was identified.
On February 14, 2011 the Joint Executive Steering Committee (JESC)
for Executive Order 13527, Section 3, met to discuss the workgroup's
findings and concluded that more could be done to identify potential
Federal capability pools and develop plans to rapidly protect and
leverage those pools in the event of an Anthrax attack. It was also
determined that DHS and DHHS should continue to develop a detailed
implementation plan to implement the courses of action detailed in the
FIOP-MCM. A revision of the FIOP-MCM, detailing a comprehensive Federal
capability, responsible for responding to an aerosolized Anthrax
attack, will be resubmitted to the NSS by the end of the fiscal year.
Questions From Ranking Member Laura Richardson of California
Question 1. In the coming weeks I will be reintroducing, the
Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Preparedness Planning Act to
assist local educational agencies and districts located in areas much
like mine, that find themselves high threat of terrorist attacks,
natural disasters, or public health emergencies to formulate and
implement an emergency preparedness plan to provide for the safety of
all young people.
Taking into consideration the work that FEMA has accomplished with
the Commission on Children and Disasters and other stakeholders, please
explain to the committee how the fiscal year 2012 budget will assist in
the enhancement of emergency preparedness in schools.
Answer. FEMA, in coordination with the Department of Education,
American Red Cross, Corporation for National and Community Service, and
Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster (VOAD), has several efforts
underway to provide practical resources and assistance to
institutionalize school and community-based youth preparedness
programs, for example:
Under the fiscal year 2012 budget request, FEMA continues to
provide resources for children developed by our Citizen Corps
Affiliate Partners, including Get Ready with Freddie from the
Home Safety Council, the Masters of Disaster curriculum
developed by the American Red Cross, and the Risk Watch
curriculum developed by the National Fire Protection
Association.
FEMA will also continue to pilot and promulgate programs
such as the Student Tools for Emergency Planning (STEP), which
teaches 4th and 5th grade students about disaster preparedness,
involving their families as they learn.
FEMA's Emergency Management Institute (EMI) will be offering
an 8-hour on-line course for school personnel, ``Multi-Hazard
Emergency Planning for Schools''; a 4-hour on-line course for
emergency managers called the ``Needs of Children in
Disasters''; and a 1-week classroom course, ``Multi-Hazard
Safety Program for Schools'', which is designed to help the
school community plan for all types of disasters.
FEMA will also continue to enhance its Ready website to help
parents and teachers educate children, ages 8-12, about
emergencies and how they can help their family prepare.
Ready Kids includes a family-friendly site and in-school
materials developed in partnership with Discovery Education,
Sesame Street, and Scholastic Inc.
There is also a Spanish language version of Ready Kids
called Listo Ninos (www.listo.gov). FEMA will also continue to
partner with Discovery Education in promoting the Ready
Classroom, an on-line educational curriculum program. The
program provides K-8 teachers with resources to integrate
natural disaster preparedness information into their
curriculum.
The on-line resource, www.discoveryeducation.com/
readyclassroom, offers teachers activities, lesson plans, and
multimedia tools that teach students how natural disasters
develop and inspires them to build their own emergency
preparedness plans with their families.
Question 2. For fiscal year 2011 FEMA needs $3 billion in funding
from the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) to respond to storms, hurricanes,
blizzards, and other natural disasters. With current funding levels of
only $1.478 billion for fiscal year 2011, the DRF is estimated to run
out by May unless a full year is passed. Although funding for fiscal
year 2012 for the Disaster Relief Fund is increased by 20% to $1.8
billion do you believe this amount appropriate, or do you anticipate
additional funding will be needed as has been done in past years?
Answer. The $1.8 billion requested for the Disaster Relief Fund,
per standard annual practice, reflects the 5-year rolling average of
historical obligations for non-catastrophic events (those less than
$500 million in estimated obligations), less estimated recoveries for
fiscal year 2012. We also have a robust strategy in place to de-
obligate funds from past contracts and projects that are now complete
and where we did not spend all the money originally obligated. Based on
our experience in actively managing the unliquidated contract
obligations in fiscal year 2010, we are taking the same approach for
Public Assistance grants in fiscal year 2011, and anticipate that our
projected recoveries will be greater than the $900 million estimate in
the fiscal year 2012 budget request. These combined factors leave us
less likely to need additional funding as has been done in prior years.
Question 3. Administrator Fugate, you have in the past emphasized
the need to promote the ``Whole of Community'' concept within emergency
management. The concept highlights the important role of different non-
governmental agencies in emergency preparedness, which includes non-
profit, faith-based, and private sector entities. Additionally, the
Department emphasizes the important role of citizens which is
demonstrated by the recommendation to maintain level funding for a
relatively small allotment of $13 million for the Citizen Corps grant
program. Given the many natural and man-made threats we face, how does
the Department's grant realignment strategy, based on decreased
dollars, consolidation, and elimination, support the ``Whole of
Community'' concept?
Answer. The Whole Community concept will continue to be addressed
through the use of targeted investments in several homeland security
grant programs, including the Emergency Management Performance Grants
(EMPG), the State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSP), and the Urban
Areas Security Initiative (UASI). In coordination with FEMA's multiple
private and public sector stakeholders, FEMA will use their existing
authorities to incorporate specific opportunities for grantees to
develop community-oriented projects that would essentially mirror
projects currently funded by any grants that would be subject to
consolidation or elimination. FEMA will also modify current investment
justifications to ensure that Whole Community concepts and objectives
are reflected in project design whenever possible.
Question 4. Your written statement references the Emergency Food
and Shelter program by stating ``it is not a disaster program and is
not designed to serve disaster survivors''. I would propose that
resiliency is closing associated with enhancing the capabilities of
economically disadvantaged communities--both emergency management
agencies and citizens. Also, that programs such as the Emergency Food
and Shelter program fits together with your ``Whole of Community''
concept since it relies on a partnership with local service delivery
agencies. What steps has FEMA taken to work more closely with non-
profit organizations that serve economically disadvantaged communities
on a daily basis? How does FEMA distribute the preparedness message to
economically disadvantaged communities, especially in rural areas?
Answer. FEMA is actively partnering with non-profit, voluntary, and
faith-based organizations that serve economically disadvantaged
communities. Examples of these partnerships can be found in the Center
for Faith-based & Neighborhood Partnerships, the Individual and
Community Preparedness Division, as well as the Emergency Food and
Shelter Program.
center for faith-based & neighborhood partnerships
Recognizing the dynamic, integral, and profound role faith- and
community-based groups have in creating resilient individuals,
families, and communities, the Center for Faith-based and Neighborhood
Partnerships at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS Center) is
working across the entire Department, and especially within FEMA, to
build partnerships and strengthen relationships between DHS and
voluntary, faith-based, and community organizations.
Forms of Engagement
Regional Conferences
National Stakeholder Calls
Informational Meetings and Presentations
Initiative engagement and support (i.e. National
Preparedness Month, Black Leadership Forum Summit)
Impacts
The charge to strengthen community resiliency by building
partnerships and strengthening relationships between DHS and voluntary,
faith-based, and community organizations is having an impact in three
distinct ways. Recent examples include:
DHS Center hosted the Faithful Readiness Conference in
Milwaukee. Participants included representatives from Governor
Jim Doyle's office, FEMA Region V, HHS Region V, faith-based &
community organizations (FBCOs) representing WI, IL, MN, and MI
as well as several State and local emergency management
agencies. More than 180 participants were in attendance. The
conference highlighted lessons learned from recent disasters
and partnership strategies among Government and FBCOs to serve
the most vulnerable populations before, during, and after
disasters.
DHS Center hosted the National Flood Awareness Week
conference call with 117 faith-based and community
organizations. The call focused on how to work with vulnerable
communities to prepare for floods; review of the flood
insurance risk tool and the need for development of local NGO
leadership in rural communities prior to flooding.
The DHS Center, in partnership with FEMA Region VIII VAL,
attended North Dakota Voluntary Organizations Active in
Disaster (VOAD) meeting in Devil's Lake, ND to be briefed by
local, county, and Tribal officials on the status of the 2010
Devil's Lake flood disaster recovery efforts and to learn about
the financial, social, and spiritual impact of 17 years of
flooding in the region. The 17 years of flooding has been
devastating to Devil's Lake, ND--especially the already
economically vulnerable community of Spirit Lake Reservation.
Subsequently, the DHS Center met with leaders of FBCOs located
on Spirit Lake Reservation to discuss the unique challenges and
opportunities of working in disaster recovery on the
reservation and preliminary planning to form a Community
Organizations Active in Disaster (COAD) to include the Devil's
Lake Community and the reservation. In addition, the Center met
with Red River Resiliency, part of the Emotional and Spiritual
Needs subcommittee of Fargo/Moorhead COAD to discuss the
challenges of the organization and potential ways for the
Center to support their work.
The DHS Center, in partnership with FEMA Region III VAL, met
in three parts of West Virginia with a cross-section of
stakeholders: Agency, VOAD, house of worship, long-term
recovery, and State officials. In these meetings, the
participants identified challenges, successes, and areas of
improvement to help CFBNP and the FEMA VALs support the State,
the State VOAD, and long-term recovery efforts. West Virginia
has many communities in great need for long-term recovery and
has a severe lack of financial resources due to numerous small
disasters in rural and economically disadvantaged areas--CFBNP
is trying to help the community identify creative solutions for
fulfilling unmet needs.
The DHS Center attended the Pikeville College South kick-off
event along with FEMA colleagues. DHS Center commended the
community of Pikeville, Kentucky on their rebuilding efforts
since the July 2010 floods. Efforts include a $25,000 donation
presentation by the Pikeville Ministerial Alliance. Federal,
State, and local governments are partnering with faith-based
and community groups, Pikeville College, and the private sector
to remodel the motel to create 60 new housing units for flood
survivors. The rural and economically disadvantaged communities
were hit especially hard with the floods.
Individual and Community Preparedness Division
FEMA's Individual and Community Preparedness Division (ICPD)
supports this FEMA leadership priority by undertaking initiatives to
engage organizations that serve economically disadvantaged communities.
Recent ICPD efforts to get preparedness messages and strategic
preparedness planning into important discussions include being involved
in the 2010 Black Leadership Forum Summit, the Latino Leadership
Summit, the 2010 Inclusive Emergency Management National Capacity
Building Training Conference, and the Youth Preparedness Education
Summit. These summits have allowed further strategic discussions with
related organizations ranging from the National Pan Hellenic Council,
the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People,
National Council of La Raza and National Hispanic Christian Leadership
Conference. FEMA's goal is to make sure these organizations, and the
communities they represent, have an active seat and voice in
preparedness efforts. For example, FEMA has reached out to some of
these key groups to participate in the National Level Exercise Citizen
and Community Preparedness Working Group.
FEMA has also piloted an Emergency Preparedness Demonstration
Project (EPD), designed to help advance the capacity of disadvantaged
groups to develop and actively participate in disaster awareness and
planning. Its objectives are to:
Conduct research on the status of disaster awareness and
emergency preparedness in socially and economically
disadvantaged households and communities.
Design and implement demonstration projects to improve
awareness and preparedness in such households and communities.
Develop proposals for incorporating changes in FEMA programs
based on results received.
The project provided a set of resources and procedures for spurring
locally-driven emergency preparedness planning, with a focus on low-
wealth neighborhoods and communities. Tools developed by the pilot
include a six-step checklist, which provides disadvantaged groups a
roadmap on how to organize, plan, coordinate, and implement emergency
awareness and preparedness activities. EPD also included a focus on
developing partnerships, for rural communities. The initial EPD work
has led to increased strategies and resources with a rural focus. USDA
Regional Rural Development Centers (RRDCs) have implemented programs
with successful strategies identified under the EPD program.
Emergency Food and Shelter Program
The Emergency Food and Shelter National Board Program (EFSP) is a
Federal program administered by DHS' Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) and has been entrusted through the McKinney-Vento
Homeless Assistance Act of 1987 (Pub. L. 100-77) ``to supplement and
expand on-going efforts to provide shelter, food, and supportive
services'' for hungry and homeless people across the Nation.
The National Board, the governing body of the EFSP, is chaired by
FEMA with representatives from American Red Cross; Catholic Charities
USA; The Jewish Federations of North America; National Council of the
Churches of Christ in the U.S.A.; The Salvation Army; and United Way
Worldwide. United Way Worldwide serves as Secretariat and fiscal agent
to the National Board.
The program's objectives are:
To allocate funds to the neediest areas;
To ensure fast response;
To foster public-private sector partnerships;
To ensure local decision-making; and,
To maintain minimal, but accountable, reporting.
The National Board targets those jurisdictions each year that are
most economically disadvantaged by allocating program funds based on
the most currently available National unemployment and poverty
statistics. The Local Boards that are convened assess the on-going food
and shelter needs in their communities and select those local social
service organizations best suited to deliver assistance according to
the highest needs as identified by the Local Boards. As such, FEMA, by
extension through the EFSP National Board and over 2,500 Local Boards
across the country, works closely with local non-profit and government
organizations that are daily meeting the needs of disadvantaged
communities by providing assistance to their at-need populations in the
form of food, served meals, shelter, and rent/mortgage and utility bill
payments.
The EFSP is a model program that fosters important public-nonprofit
partnerships that enable the rapid and efficient delivery of emergency
economic assistance to families and individuals on a daily, targeted,
and coordinated basis. EFSP funds are used to provide the following
services, as determined by the Local Board, in each funded
jurisdiction:
Food, in the form of served meals or groceries;
Lodging in a mass shelter or hotel;
One month's rent/mortgage, and/or utility bill payment;
Transportation costs associated with the provision of food
or shelter;
Minimal repairs to mass feeding or sheltering facilities for
building code violations or for handicapped accessibility; and
Supplies and equipment necessary to feed or shelter people,
up to a $300 limit per item.
Question 5. As I mentioned in my opening statement, the House
Leadership has decided to pursue a Continuing Resolution budget
strategy. I am concerned that this strategy places additional strain on
FEMA at a time when the agency and our State and local partners should
be moving forward with the grant process and critical preparedness
efforts. Can you provide the committee with insight on what issues are
presented to FEMA, State, and local agencies with a condensed grant
schedule? Please provide a general description of some of the homeland
security investments State and local agencies used grants funds for in
fiscal year 2010.
Answer. With the delayed fiscal year 2011 appropriations, FEMA must
condense the grant schedule which will have an impact on FEMA's ability
to fully review applications. FEMA is in the process of determining
exactly what steps will be reduced in order to make awards by September
30, 2011. Application periods will be reduced in length. If FEMA
determines that there is not time for sufficient review of non-
competitive grant program awards, it will be necessary to place special
conditions on awards thus restricting obligation and expenditure of
grant funds until full reviews can be accomplished. Competitive review
processes will have to be reduced in length, thereby placing additional
pressure on staff and partner agencies that participate in the grant
reviews.
Question 6. While I understand that we are in a time of exercising
fiscal restraint, I do hope that it means we will not lose focus of the
good that the State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP) does in
helping State and local first responders prepare for the worst. Once
again the President's budgets proposes the elimination of several
smaller grant programs such as the Metropolitan Medical Response System
and allow it to be eligible expenses under the (SHSGP). Can you explain
the decision process and what factors determined which programs should
be consolidated and those that should remain as carve outs and what
feedback you have received from key State and local stakeholders? Also,
what guidance will the Department provide to State and local
stakeholders to assist them in the process of prioritizing risks so
that grant dollars are focused on the resources most needed to enhance
their preparedness?
Answer. A March 2011 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO)
report, Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government
Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenues (GAO-11-318SP), noted
that the number of FEMA preparedness grant programs has grown from 8 in
2002 to 17 in 2010 as the result of Congressional and Executive branch
actions. A number of these programs fund common eligible recipients
(such as State homeland security agencies) for similar purposes.
The DHS Inspector General had reported previously, in March 2010,
that FEMA's application process for its preparedness grant programs did
not promote effectiveness and efficiency because FEMA did not compare
and coordinate grant applications across preparedness programs to
identify and mitigate potential duplications (for example, planning and
interoperable communications are two activities that can be funded by
almost all of the programs reviewed by the Inspector General); the
report recommended FEMA do so.
In response to these and other external and internal reviews, we
are actively exploring opportunities to consolidate grant programs when
it makes sense for FEMA and our grantees in a way that does not
diminish the efficacy of the overall homeland security enterprise. Our
grant program guidance will incorporate specific requirements to
promote the use of tailored investment justifications to ensure that
objectives of small programs such as MMRS are not overlooked. We are
also actively incorporating specific risk analyses and performance
measurement frameworks in all of our grant programs; this will further
ensure that critical ``small grant'' objectives are retained within the
overall homeland security program.
Over the longer term, we look forward to working with the Congress
to streamline and consolidate program-specific legislation to ensure
alignment and efficiency.
grants
Question 7. The President's fiscal year 2012 budget request
eliminates and consolidates a variety of grant programs. Among the
largest programmatic grant reductions in the proposal are to the
Firefighter Assistance program--the Staffing for Adequate Fire and
Emergency Response (SAFER) and Assistance to Firefighter Grant (AFG).
For fiscal year 2012, the two programs would receive $670 million, $140
million less than the Congress provided in fiscal year 2011. While I do
recognize the increased allocations for SAFER and AFG are still being
cut by $200 million, can you please explain to the committee how the
Department came to the decision to reduce funding for AFG while
increasing SAFER grants?
Answer. Due to current economic hardships on State and local
governments that threaten the reduction in staffing of fire departments
to dangerously low levels, the decision was made to focus limited grant
resources on rehiring laid-off firefighters. The fiscal year 2012
budget request provides funding for more than 2,200 firefighter jobs.
Additionally, some larger grant programs such as the State Homeland
Security Program and UASI can fund some activities including training
and equipment associated with the AFG program.
The decision to allocate a higher percentage to the SAFER grants
was based on the impact staffing, or lack thereof, has on firefighter
safety. For example, in April 2010, the Commission on Fire
Accreditation International (CFAI) (a National fire service
organization that accredits fire departments), in conjunction with the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), released a study
that links the impact between staffing and arrival times influence on
saving lives and property. One finding from this study indicates that
four-person crews were able to respond and conduct search and rescue
functions 30 percent faster than departments with smaller crew sizes.
The study concludes that smaller crews (i.e. two-person crews) would
impact sensitive communities (children and elderly) due to their
inability to mitigate the effects of gas and fire exposure. Further, a
report by the National Fire Academy found that in smaller communities,
a crew staffed with four firefighters rather than three could perform
rescue of potential victims 80 percent faster.
Staffing levels also impact the safety of the firefighters. A study
from the Seattle Fire Department concluded that ``the rate of
firefighter injuries expressed as total hours of disability per hours
of fire ground exposure were 54% greater for engine companies staffed
with 3 personnel when compared to those staffed with 4 firefighters.''
According to the United States Fire Administration, there were over
445,400 fires in 2009 representing 2,570 fire deaths and 14,100
injuries. Direct costs from these fires losses were estimated at $10
billion. The impact of smaller crew size can also affect the health and
safety of a firefighter. Results from the CFAI/NIST study showed that
cardiovascular strain was higher when a crew of two firefighters was
deployed than when a crew of five firefighters was deployed. In 2009,
82 firefighters were lost in the line of duty. A contributing factor in
these fatalities was stress and overexertion. As the CFAI/NIST study
noted, there is strong evidence to show that heavy physical exertion
and cardiovascular strain can trigger sudden cardiac events. There were
27 firefighters lost on the fire ground.
In conclusion, increases in funding for SAFER grants are being
proposed because of the need to avoid reductions in the number of
firefighters.
Question 8. In the President's fiscal year 2012 Budget
Congressional Justifications for FEMA State and Local Programs, the
Department has taken steps to list their fiscal year 2012 Planned
Accomplishments. Among the accomplishments listed is a reference
describing the intent for funding of the ``Assistance to Firefighters
Grants'' for fiscal year 2012 as to, ``Enable hiring of more than 2,200
firefighter positions that curb the trend of layoffs and improve
departmental capability to respond per National Fire Protection
Association Recommendations.'' Considering that the amount of monies
funded for the AFG Program is reduced by $140 million to a total of
$670 million and the need for many other things that local fire
departments could do with that money, how did you come to the
determination that the hiring of more than 2,200 firefighters would be
possible?
Answer. The following is the formula used to estimate the number:
GPD currently uses 5% of the appropriated funds for
management and administration;
Therefore, $399,000,000 would be available for SAFER awards;
In addition to hiring firefighters the SAFER grants support
the recruitment and retention of volunteer firefighters with an
estimated 10% of the available funds are allocated towards
those programs;
In fiscal year 2010 the average firefighter position was
$81,600 (salary and benefits);
In fiscal year 2010 the period of performance for these
positions was 2 years;
Each fiscal year 2010 funded position received $163,200 (on
average);
Given available funding (minus M&A and volunteer R&R), with
an estimated cost $160,000 per firefighter for a 2-year period
of performance, GPD estimates funding 2,200 positions.
Question 9. As you know, the 9/11 Commission found that
interoperable emergency communications was a profound area of need for
first responders. While some progress has been made since that time,
interoperability remains a major homeland security challenge. The
President's fiscal year 2012 budget request eliminates the
Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program (IECPG) as a
stand-alone program and consolidates it into an eligible expense under
the State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP). Given the current
fiscal difficulties that so many of our State and local communities are
facing, are you confident that interoperable communications initiatives
will receive the same level of attention in the grant application
process as it now has with the existence of a distinct program as it
now stands?
Answer. Since fiscal year 2008, the Interoperable Emergency
Communications Grant Program (IECGP) has awarded $145,150,000 to 56
States and territories. IECGP provides governance, planning, training,
and exercise funding to States, territories, local, and Tribal
governments to carry out initiatives to improve interoperable emergency
communications, including communications in collective response to
natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other man-made disasters.
State and local governments have used IECGP awards to fund Statewide
Interoperability Coordinators (SWICs), develop Statewide Communication
Interoperability Plans (SCIPs) and periodic updates, and meet the
strategic goals of the National Emergency Communications Plan (NECP).
The State Homeland Security Program (SHSP) allows for funding of
similar efforts; therefore, the budget request seeks to consolidate
IECGP into the broader grant program in order to maximize the ability
of State decision-makers to set priorities and to reduce the
administrative barriers to grants. FEMA is working with the National
Protection and Programs Directorate's (NPPD) Office of Emergency
Communications (OEC) to ensure that IECGP initiatives are maintained,
such as meeting the requirements of IECGP Priority Groups One
(Leadership, Governance, and Common Operational Planning and Protocols)
and Two (Emergency Responder Skills and Capabilities Development
through Training and Exercises). FEMA and NPPD/OEC are also
coordinating to include IECGP allowable activities into the SHSP cost
categories of planning, training, exercises, personnel, and equipment
that will continue to enhance interoperability. Therefore, we are
confident that the consolidation will not hinder the effectiveness of
enhancing capabilities for interoperable communications.
Question 10. Under the proposed continuing resolution for fiscal
year 2011, H.R. 1, the State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP) is
reduced by approximately 12 percent when compared to the President's
fiscal year 2011 budget request. The cut will result in reduced funding
for highest-risk States due to the mandatory minimums for States in
Sec. 2004 of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007. Would you speculate for
us how the reduction will affect the awarding of grants under this
program?
Answer. Any reduction in funding for the State Homeland Security
Grant Program (SHSGP) will directly affect the highest-risk States, as
DHS plans to allocate SHSGP funding based upon the results of the
fiscal year 2011 risk analysis in accordance with the mandatory
minimums as established by the 9/11 Act requirements.
SHSGP risk is evaluated at the Federal level using an analytical
model developed by DHS in conjunction with other Federal entities.
Threat--the likelihood of an attack occurring.
Vulnerability--the relative exposure to an attack.
Consequence--the expected impact of an attack.
The risk model used to allocate SHSP funds considers the potential
risk of terrorism to people, critical infrastructure, and economic
security to estimate the relative risk of terrorism faced by a given
area. If a State's risk-determined allocation is below the statutory
minimum, DHS must increase their allocation amount to the minimum
threshold, which is absorbed by the States at higher risk. Reductions
in appropriated SHSGP funds will in fact have a larger impact on
higher-risk States unless the statutory minimums are lowered
proportionately.
Question 11. You regularly emphasize that citizens should be viewed
as a resource and not a liability in preparing and responding to a
disaster. The Citizen Corps Program builds on your emphasis of
utilizing the ``Whole of Community''. Therefore, it is important that
we continue to utilize this program as means to engage and empower
citizens within emergency management and homeland security. Please
describe how the Citizen Corps Program has enhanced our Nation's
preparedness? Given our financial constraints, is FEMA committed to
continue to build this program in the future?
Answer. The Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) Citizen
Corps program is a Nation-wide grassroots effort to provide all
Americans with the knowledge, skills, and capability to take
responsibility for their own safety and that of their families and
neighbors. Located in all 50 States and six U.S. territories and
reaching over 180 million people, Citizen Corps Councils are helping
Americans make their own communities better informed, trained, and
prepared for threats of all kinds. Through these Councils, local
governments are bringing emergency responder groups together with non-
profits, private sector, faith-based organizations, schools and school
administrators, volunteer groups, and other non-governmental groups to
address community-based strategies for preparing for and responding to
threats of all kinds. FEMA is committed to expanding Citizen Corps
Councils across the Nation, and with continued support from Congress,
we can go further, faster. FEMA is committed to building individual and
community preparedness across the whole community. Citizen Corps will
continue to be an important part of that commitment.
Question 12. Under the proposed continuing resolution for fiscal
year 2011, H.R. 1, Port Security grants are cut by $200 million, or
two-thirds. Would you speculate for us how the reduction will affect
the awarding of grants under this program?
Answer. The goal of the port security grant program is to mitigate
port security risks to include addressing the gaps and vulnerabilities
that may expose our ports to terrorist attack. Toward that end, the
program has been highly successful; all large ports have made
substantial progress toward addressing the risks identified in their
Port-Wide Risk Management plans. However, over the long term, a major
reduction in funding could have a significant impact on the ability of
port stakeholders to complete the job--to prevent, protect, respond to,
and recover from a terrorist attack by addressing the security
vulnerabilities that remain.
Since the 2007 Supplemental round of port security grants, awards
to the highest-risk port areas (that annually receive approximately 90%
of available funding), have been administered through a Fiduciary Agent
in which a single grantee is issued funds to support a collaborative
approach for managing security risks throughout the port. The Port-Wide
Risk Management Plan (PRMP) is designed to assess port security needs
and identify specific capability gaps and risk-related vulnerabilities.
The PRMP includes a list of prioritized initiatives and/or projects and
a 5-year anticipated spend plan for the port area to address those gaps
and vulnerabilities and reduce port security risks. Most of the PRMP
spend plans were developed based on the assumption that annual funding
levels would remain steady or increase for the duration of the 5-year
plan.
Although the fiscal year 2011 appropriation for PSGP reduces
funding by 16.6% to $250 million, it does not necessarily translate to
an across-the-board, 16.6% cut for all ports.
In summary, from a grant programmatic perspective, it is not
possible to predict exactly what the effect of reduced funding for
fiscal year 2011 would be for the ports in the United States. However
over the long term, and as previously noted, reduced funding may cause
significant delay or outright abandonment of vital risk mitigation
projects for the ports.
fema's overall budget cut
Question 13. Administrator Fugate, the committee applauds the job
you have done in rebuilding FEMA and re-establishing strong connections
with the emergency management community. Yet, challenges remain
including overcoming the memories of FEMA's disastrous performance in
response to Hurricane Katrina. Given the 4 percent cut to FEMA's
overall budget, please describe your plans for continuing to strengthen
FEMA and how the President's fiscal year 2012 budget implements such a
plan.
Answer. As the President made clear in his State of the Union
address, the current budget climate requires us to take a hard look at
our agency and make tough decisions on how to spend limited taxpayer
funds. As an emergency manager, I have never been given unlimited funds
to fulfill my mission, and this year is no different. The
administration's proposed budget reflects the appropriate balance of
reducing spending in several areas and enabling FEMA, through
efficiency and innovative thinking, to fulfill its mission of ensuring
domestic resilience to disasters.
The fiscal year 2012 President's budget request of $815.099 million
for the Management and Administration appropriation reflects FEMA's
priority to manage resources more effectively across the Federal
Government while ensuring the Nation's resilience from disasters. The
agency has reexamined its current allocation of resources among
existing programs to consider the relative return on investment among
these activities, and to focus on those programs that have the most
significant impact on the agency's ability to fulfill its emergency
management mission. Moreover, FEMA will focus on streamlining current
business processes and harnessing the use of innovative technologies.
FEMA is confident the 2012 President's budget provides the level of
resources required to support the agency's ability to fulfill its
emergency management mission.
First, the fiscal year 2012 budget request reflects the resources
required to support the current level of staffing across the agency. In
recent years, FEMA has added staff to build internal capacity in the
following functional areas:
Establishing Incident Management Assistance Teams (IMATs).
Developing National Response Coordination Center and
Regional Response Coordination Center 24/7 watch capability.
Increasing operational planning capability.
Strengthening emergency communications through Mobile
Emergency Response Support (MERS) and improved public disaster
communications.
Enhancing the agency's disaster recovery and logistics
functions.
Building capacity for business support activities including
acquisition management, information technology, and financial
management.
Through these additional resources, FEMA can now respond to
disasters and help communities recover more quickly than before. For
example, the agency can now provide IMATs, Urban Search and Rescue
(US&R) Teams, and MERS within 12 hours of deployment notification.
Moreover, the agency is now able to fill more than 97.5 percent of
orders for life-sustaining commodities (including meals, water, tarps,
cots, blankets, etc.) within the required time frame. In short, the
agency is making significant progress towards its goal of stabilizing
communities impacted by Presidentially declared disasters within 72
hours of the event. In addition, today, the agency is able to provide
more than 94 percent of eligible applicants with temporary housing
assistance within 60 days of a disaster. The fiscal year 2012 budget
request reflects the funding to maintain the internal capacity that
FEMA has established in recent years.
Additionally, the President's proposed budget for fiscal year 2012
would sustain Federal funding of more than $3.84 billion for State and
local preparedness grants, highlighting the Department's commitment to
getting resources into the hands of State and local first responders
who are often best positioned to detect and respond to terrorism,
natural disasters, and other threats. Even in this difficult budget
environment, the administration recognizes the importance of
maintaining funding for State and local governments as they prepare for
major disasters and emergencies of all kinds.
Question 14. Administrator Fugate, as you know, last year DHS
submitted its first-ever Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR) to
Congress, followed by its Bottom-up Review (BUR), which included an
assessment of DHS' organizational alignment with the homeland security
missions set forth in the QHSR. The BUR was hailed as the second step
of a three-step process, with the Department's fiscal year 2012 budget
request serving as the third and final step. So now, the process is
complete. Looking back, how did the QHSR/BUR process enhance budget
preparation for FEMA? What organizational steps did DHS and FEMA take
to ensure that the BUR informed the budget request? Can you point to
specific items in the budget that were included based on the
assessments from the BUR?
Answer. The BUR and subsequent Resource Allocation Plan (RAP)
development were used by FEMA to frame and organize its annual budget
request. The agency recognizes the need to better articulate what we
do, why we do it, and what is the outcome, and the BUR afforded FEMA
that opportunity. The objectives of the BUR were three-fold:
(1) Improve comparability and transparency agency-wide to provide a
sense of what it costs to do business and what we achieve for those
costs;
(2) Improve performance management to describe the impact of
delivering more effective emergency management; and
(3) Improve costing to more accurately and reliably describe what
it takes to deliver emergency management.
Organizationally, FEMA executed a number of steps to ensure that
the BUR informed the agency's budget request. First, FEMA developed an
``Activities Inventory'' which serves as the comprehensive list of
agency activities and foundation of FEMA's annual budget, accounting
for 100% of agency resources. Second, FEMA aligned its activities to
the Department's QHSR mission, goals, and objectives. Third, FEMA
evaluated its current program and account structure related to
activities and alignment to overall mission, goals, and objectives
which helped the agency better articulate its return on investment
story. Fourth, FEMA has required performance measures aligned to
activities to increase its ability to show programs' contribution to
the achievement of mission outcomes. Last, the process of inventorying
and aligning activities to missions, indentifying the cost elements/
drivers of each activity, aggregating activity costs to programs and
missions, and tracking actual activity cost against spend plans for
budget execution has enabled FEMA to better articulate the relationship
to strategy. These efforts have enabled FEMA to more formally integrate
the RAP (i.e. budget development) process with other program planning
and budget processes.
A couple of specific examples stem from the BUR and FEMA's fiscal
year 2012-2016 Resource Allocation Plan (RAP) development assessments.
Mass Care was considered a part of FEMA's Individual Recovery
Assistance and aggregated therein. However, through the BUR, the
importance of defining Individual Assistance--Mass Care as a distinct
function directly supporting QHSR Goal 5.3 (response), whereas the
typical Individual Assistance function directly aligns to the QHSR Goal
5.4. This resulted in a better understanding and articulation of the
two distinct--yet related--functions being performed by the same
personnel in the overall Recovery Mission--both of which are critical
to the accomplishment of QHSR Mission 5.
For the Preparedness Mission, the BUR assessment revealed a number
of similar functions related to preparedness training and education and
the various associated training sites. The Program--in reviewing the
data--undertook a deeper review and recognized commonalities among
training sites that resulted in a consolidating and/or streamlining
similar functions into an activity that describes the true function.
Question 15. In an effort to save costs, the budget seeks to push
back the date for the consolidation of FEMA to St. Elizabeths. How will
this decision impact FEMA's budget for the rental and leasing of office
space?
Answer. Pushing back the date for the consolidation of FEMA to St.
Elizabeth's will impact FEMA's budget and leasing of office space.
Currently, we are paying $32 million annually in rent and operating
costs for the eight NCR GSA-leased facilities up to fiscal year 2014.
The anticipated funding for fiscal year 2014 rent would have been $24
million (thru June 2014). In the last quarter of fiscal year 2014 and
fiscal year 2015, FEMA's rent would have been $0 with the planned move-
in to the St. Elizabeth facility. If the St. Elizabeth's facility
completion date is pushed back, GSA will have to renegotiate the
majority of leases for FEMA in the National Capital Region and funding
will have to be provided for the rent and operating costs of these
facilities which could estimate $35 million annually for each year FEMA
cannot move in to the St. Elizabeth facility.
transportation security
Question 16. The Department of Homeland Security and TSA continue
to focus almost exclusively on aviation security, spending, on average,
$9 per air passenger, as compared to only one penny per rail/mass
transit passenger. What percentage of FEMA's budget is being spent on
surface transportation programs, such as technology research, training,
and response and preparedness operations specifically for mass transit
and passenger rail?
Answer. The President's fiscal year 2012 budget requests funding
for program specifically focused on surface transportation program--the
Transit Security Grant Program (Intercity Passenger Rail--Amtrak/
Freight Rail Security Grant Program). The Transit Security Grant
Program provides funds to support transit systems which include
intercity bus, commuter bus, ferries, and all forms of passenger rail.
The fiscal year 2012 request is $300 million, or approximately 4.4% of
the entire FEMA request of $6.8 billion.
training, measurement, and exercise program
Question 17. The budget request proposes a dramatic cut to the
National Domestic Preparedness Consortium (NDPC), which identifies and
provides first-responder training in the areas of terrorism and
catastrophic event prevention, deterrence, and incident response.
Please describe how FEMA came to decision to cut these important
training programs utilized by our State and local first responders.
Answer. The NDPC budget request was determined based on the fact
that States are assuming increased responsibility for awareness level,
refresher, and sustainment training that will allow our institutional
partners to focus resources on more advanced, specialized training
consistent with their respective expertise.
social media
Question 18. You have done a great job with utilizing social media
to provide citizens with important emergency management agencies that
will enhance their preparedness and speed the recovery process. Please
describe how FEMA has enhanced the use of social media and how the
budget request supports those efforts. How will FEMA ensure that
individuals without access to the internet and social media, including
the elderly, are capable of receiving timely emergency information?
Answer. In support of FEMA's Congressional Justification, FEMA's
strategy is to use social media tools the public are using on a daily
basis, so we're providing more of our information through those
channels, including through our mobile website (http://m.fema.gov). In
addition, DHS S&T is supporting FEMA IPAWS by examining the use of
emerging technologies in public alert and warning. The First Responder
Group is examining how the Emergency Response Community can best use
social media to originate and disseminate alerts and warnings. Given
the popularity and growth of on-line social media communities, alerting
the public through social media, in addition to the other sources,
serves as a critical dissemination channel. According to a survey
conducted in August, 2010 by the American Red Cross, nearly 75% of the
U.S. population uses at least one on-line social media community. In
light of the popularity of these networks, on-line social media offers
an important opportunity for emergency managers to disseminate alerts
to more people, in more places, in less time. An important part of this
strategy is to not make the public conform to how we think they should
operate. Just like going to a physical town hall meeting to listen and
engage with the public, this is what we're doing with social media,
we're going out and we're listening. During a response, FEMA acts as a
support agency and we're part of the team, so we help amplify State/
local messages, point users to State/city/Red Cross social media
accounts, and highlight great examples of technology projects that
benefit the public.
FEMA employs a multi-pronged communications approach, understanding
that social media and digital communication channels are only one tool
in the toolkit. And as we often say, ``FEMA is not the team--FEMA is
part of the team,'' where ``team'' includes the entire Federal family,
State, local, and Tribal officials, the faith-based, businesses, and
non-profits in the private sector, and most importantly the public. We
rely on each member of the team to share information before, during,
and after disasters, and work to leverage all of the resources that the
collective team brings to the table in meeting that goal.
During any incident, emergency information starts with--and it best
provided by--the State, local, and Tribal officials who are primarily
the first responders and know the needs of their communities and
respective populations best. As such, FEMA works hand-in-hand with
these partners to help support their communications efforts by
amplifying their emergency messages. For example, if a State has issued
evacuation orders prior to a hurricane, FEMA, in coordination with the
State, will use all the communications tool in our toolbox to help
amplify that message, so it reaches as many people in the targeted area
as possible. And whether we are in ``steady state'' or in an emergency,
we are constantly working with these partners on their emergency
communications planning, to ensure they are taking all key factors into
account, so as making sure their communications can reach individuals
without access to social media and the internet, the elderly, people
who speak other language, or people with disabilities, to name a few.
As always, we stand in support of the States and are ready to assist
with any communications needs they may have, whether it is translation
services, planning expertise, or guidance on how to ensure all
communications are 508 compliant.
At the National level, and now in each of FEMA's 10 regional
offices of External Affairs, the agency has dedicated liaisons to the
private sector who cultivate year-around relationships with
organizations that represent digital billboards such as the Outdoor
Advertising Association of America (OAAA), satellite communications
companies like the Global V-Sat Forum which represents 200 global
satellite companies, and other partners that can amplify critical
messages through non-traditional channels. The private sector liaisons
also share communications through other FEMA programs that maintains
relationships with organizations that serve disadvantaged and local
populations. For example, through its Individual and Community
Preparedness Division, FEMA has affiliations with National
organizations like Meals on Wheels and others that reach into specific
populations. FEMA also has established a disability coordinator at the
National and regional levels, maintains Voluntary Agency Liaisons at
headquarters and in the regions, and works closely with the DHS Office
of Faith Based and Neighborhood Initiatives for reach into most local
populations.
FEMA's private sector liaisons also works during disasters to
leverage the communication channels of local and State-wide
organizations, such as major employers, academic institutions,
volunteer groups, and Chambers of Commerce. For example:
During the March 2011 tsunami threat to the Pacific Coast,
members of the Outdoor Advertising Association of America, Inc.
(OAAA) displayed tsunami warnings to the public.
New England Floods, 2010: FEMA collaborated with the Boston
Red Sox, New England Sports Network, the Boston Bruins, and
with Clear Channel and Lamar Outdoor Advertising to communicate
assistance information in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Also,
FEMA and Rhode Island Emergency Management worked with National
Grid, a major utility provider, to include disaster
registration information in their April billings to 465,000
Rhode Islanders.
Tennessee Floods, 2010: FEMA worked closely with the
National Football League Players Association, the Tennessee
Titans, Gaylord Entertainment, Chambers of Commerce State-wide,
and the music industry to share disaster assistance information
with fans, customers, and other stakeholders. The Titans
recorded Public Service Announcements with FEMA.
Sector Days: FEMA produced the first ever Technology Sector
Day in early 2010 as a forum to bring Government and key
technology innovators together to discuss how to work better
together and how to leverage technology to improve the way FEMA
does business. Participants included technology giants such as
Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Verizon, and others. FEMA also
held a Federal Government Private Sector Engagement Workshop
attended by White House representatives and Federal officials
from two dozen agencies, advancing the ability of FEMA and the
Government to engage with the private sector. (This Federal
Workshop was only for Federal officials, not the private sector
representatives.) Additional sector days are underway,
including one held for retail industry leaders in March 2010.
international disasters lessons learned
Question 19. Over the last couple of months, we have witnessed
massive earthquakes and other natural disasters that have occurred
across the world. I know you are closely monitoring these situations to
learn how we can better prepare for and respond to disasters here at
home. Please describe how FEMA collaborates with other countries'
emergency management agencies and implements lessons learned into its
programming.
Answer. FEMA collaborates with other countries' emergency
management agencies in a variety of ways:
Bilateral Cooperative Agreements
FEMA exchanges best practices and solutions to emergency management
challenges through participation in multilateral organizations
such as the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation, the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization, the European Union and with
emergency management offices in Australia, New Zealand, Israel,
the Russian Federation, Canada, Mexico, Chile, and 16 other
nations. Work plans developed to support these agreements have
emphasized lessons learned sharing activities following the
recent flooding and earthquake disasters in these countries.
Ad Hoc Requests for Visits and Speakers
In fiscal year 2010, FEMA employees met with 720 emergency
management officials from 69 countries to share knowledge and
lessons learned. In fiscal year 2010, 142 FEMA staff visited 37
countries to provide subject matter expertise through programs
sponsored by NATO, the U.S. Combatant Commands, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers or the Agency for International Development, or to
speak at events, observe exercises, or participate in other
international activities. During such meetings and events,
staff members learn about other countries' emergency management
systems, challenges, and lessons learned.
Multilateral Forums
FEMA also collaborates with other countries' emergency management
agencies in multilateral forums where lessons learned are
shared, namely the Senior Civil Emergency Planning Committee
(SCEPC) of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and
the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum's Emergency
Preparedness Working Group (EPWG). In the next 6 months, FEMA
will continue to engage with Japan under the APEC Emergency
Preparedness Working Group (EPWG) during a Workshop on Private
Sector Preparedness. As a member of the National Science and
Technology Council's Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction (SDR),
FEMA also strives to remain informed of the United Nations
International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR)
initiatives and resources. The SDR is the U.S. National
Platform to the UNISDR.
Sharing Lessons Learned
In an effort to share international lessons learned more broadly
among FEMA and with U.S. emergency management partners and
stakeholders, an International Lessons Learned page has been
created and populated with content in LLIS.gov. Efforts to
strengthen and sustain this page will continue as future
international collaboration yield more lessons learned.
Promoting Change
Information on New Zealand's efforts to drive community resilience
was explored during the preparation of Presidential Policy
Directive on Preparedness. A similar trip to Japan has resulted
in strengthened FEMA contact with Japanese counterparts, who
have since shared with the agency information on the Tohoku
earthquake and tsunami. This information, of which some lessons
learned can be drawn, has been summarized and shared with FEMA
leadership. In another example, recent staff involvement in
other countries' emergency exercises, have helped to inform the
development of exercise injects for the U.S. National Level
Exercise 2011 (NLE11) when six international partners will be
players. FEMA's Office of Policy and Program Analysis is
working with international partners to identify community
experiences that address local action and public engagement in
resilience-related activities. The focus is on identifying
themes that will inform future policy initiatives.
Questions From Chairman Peter T. King of New York
Question 1a. It is my understanding that the President's fiscal
year 2012 budget request for the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) includes $7 million for the Prepositioned Equipment Program.
However, it is also my understanding that the funding required to run
the current 10 sites is $9.7 million and if the planned 11th site is
open, $10.3 million will be necessary.
Why doesn't the President's budget fully fund this program that
provides vital equipment to first responders during disaster response?
Answer. The fiscal year 2012 President's budget request reflects
FEMA's priority to manage resources more effectively across the Federal
Government while ensuring the Nation's resilience from disasters. The
agency has reexamined its current allocation of resources among
existing programs to consider the relative return on investment among
these activities, and to focus on those programs that have the most
significant impact on the agency's ability to fulfill its emergency
management mission. FEMA is confident that the fiscal year 2012 budget
request provides the level of resources required to support the
agency's ability to fulfill its emergency management mission.
Question 1b. If full funding is not provided for this program in
fiscal year 2012, how will FEMA make up for the shortfall in funding?
Answer. Given the cost-saving measures that FEMA is currently
pursuing, we believe we can maintain program readiness to support
State, local, and Tribal response operations during a disaster within
the projected fiscal year 2012 funding levels.
Question 1c. Will the lower level of funding cause the delay of the
establishment of the 11th site in Hawaii?
Answer. FEMA has funds available in fiscal year 2011 to invest
towards the capital investment costs to start-up the establishment of a
PEP site in Hawaii. Utilizing this funding, FEMA is currently working
to establish the 11th PEP site by the end of fiscal year 2011.
Question 2. What impact has the continuing resolution had on the
funding of the Prepositioned Equipment Program?
Answer. FEMA has maintained readiness of PEP throughout the on-
going continuing resolutions of fiscal year 2011 based on the partial
funding allocations provided.
Question From Chairman Gus M. Bilirakis of Florida on Behalf of Hon.
Mike Rogers of Alabama
Question. Regional Emergency Operations Centers are an important
element in our overall preparation and response efforts in the event of
a major disaster. Given that certain areas of the Nation, like the Gulf
Coast, are more prone to natural disasters, how does FEMA plan to
prioritize the utilization of regional Emergency Operations Centers and
make any necessary funding available for them in the current budget
environment?
Answer. FEMA's ten Regions are the first line of disaster response.
For any given incident, FEMA disaster response begins and ends with the
affected Region in the lead. The Regional Response Coordination Center
(RRCC) maintains a central role throughout the life cycle of an
incident.
The Regional Administrator stands up the RRCC by activating the
Regional Response Coordination Staff, which includes FEMA personnel,
the appropriate Emergency Support Function representatives, and other
personnel (including representatives of NGOs and the private sector
when appropriate). The RRCC provides needed resources and policy
guidance to support an incident and coordinates with the National
Response Coordination Center (NRCC), State emergency operations centers
(EOCs), State and major urban area fusion centers, and other Federal
and State operations centers as required. The level of an RRCC's
activation depends on the unique needs of each situation as determined
by the Regional Administrator.
The day-to-day cost of operating the RRCCs is part of the base
budget dispersed among the Regions and is included in the facilities
costs for Regional spaces (leases; utilities; maintenance) as well as
in the agency's Maintenance & Administration budget. In the event of a
disaster and increased operational tempo, additional expenses for the
RRCCs are funded through the Disaster Relief Fund. In addition, as
necessary, the Regions can provide backup support to each other.
The Emergency Operations Center (EOC) Grant Program is authorized
by Section 614 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5196c) as amended by Section 202 of the
Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Pub.
L. 110-53).
Administered through FEMA's Grant programs Directorate (GPD), the
EOC Grant Program supports flexible, sustainable, secure, strategically
located, and fully interoperable EOCs with a focus on addressing
identified deficiencies and needs. Regional EOCs are permissible under
the EOC Grant Program however. FEMA relies on the individual States to
identify whether a regional EOC would be beneficial to the State and to
the multi-State area.
Under the EOC grant program, the State Administrative Agency (SAA)
is the eligible applicant and applies for EOC funding on behalf of
eligible State, local, and Tribal EOCs. Each State sets its own
priorities in determining which applications to submit for the National
Review process. Each application [or investment justification] is
initially scored by the SAA prior to submission to FEMA for inclusion
in the National Review process. The National Review panel evaluates
each application for completeness, adherence to programmatic
guidelines, and anticipated effectiveness.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
